Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Theistic Evolutionists – How Do You See (Intelligent) Design?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Recently, I made a post regarding what I thought was an encouraging moment at Biologos, where a guest writer frankly speculated about how God could work through evolution. In the comments section, some discussion was had about just how rare or common such views are among  TEs.

Since I’ve already made the call for non-theists and agnostics who are ID sympathetic to speak up on here (and was very happy to see the resident ID proponents respond positively to that), I’d like to introduce a similar opportunity.

I’d like any theistic evolutionists who are reading this to speak up and share their views. In particular, I’m interested in…

* How you think design is reflected in the natural world, in as much general detail as you can offer. The key here is detail: Does God play a role in variation or even selection in your view? Is God omniscient and omnipotent?
* How you see your views in comparison to Intelligent Design. Compatible? Incompatible? Unsure?
* I want to stress, this isn’t limited to Christians. Muslims, hindus, deists, anything else – while I admit I’m very curious about Christian TEs, I’m casting the net broad here.
* I’d also like to hear your views on how evolution is popularly communicated. Do you think “science defenders” (ranging from the NCSE to the Cult of Gnu) help or hinder communicating evolutionary theory accurately?
* Finally, a particular question: Have you ever heard of Michael Dowd, and what’s your opinion of his approach on this topic? (In the interests of being open, I admit: I have a very low opinion of the man’s thoughts.)

Same rules apply as last time, really: Be respectful. Stay on topic. Let’s keep hostilities to a minimum.

Comments
Dr Turell: you wrote: "no religion is better than any other" here are a few religions/religious services: 1) person chops down tree, throws 1/2 log into fire to warm tootsies, other 1/2 carves into his god and prostrates self before it 2) person prostrates self before own personal fecal matter 3) person passes child through maw of idol, with fire inside, accompanied by loud drums to drown out death shrieks 4) perhaps, NAMBLA "man" thinks of his favorite "pasttime" as a religious service to god? 5) could probably go on indefinitely.... Could you further clarify your original statement? Thank you.es58
May 22, 2011
May
05
May
22
22
2011
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Timaeus #159 Thank YouUpright BiPed
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
And there are all kinds of “rank and file” ID supporters ... who have no problem with evolution at all and who don’t insist that God drives evolution through miracles.
It's all miraculous!Mung
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Hello again PFX Gumby, Thank-you for your response. I put it to you that anything which exhibits lots of FSCI (pardon the initial ‘d’ in the previous comment, it had no business being there in the context of what I was saying!) – things like Stonehenge which is much more than a mere circle, it’s alignment to the summer solstice alone very much enhancing its FSCI far above the counter-example you provided – arouses much more than a suspicion of design. You look at Stonehenge, a termite’s nest and even crop circles and you *know for certain* that they did not make themselves. And without knowing anything about the designer(s), you therefore *know for certain* that they must have been designed. That’s the remarkable and relevant property about anything with FSCI: the very first thing it does is alert us to the fact that it has been designed. Things with less FSCI do not generate that same alert. But that is irrelevant because the cell has more FSCI (and dFSCI) than anything else in the known universe. There is no possibility that the cell made itself.Chris Doyle
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
Prof FX Gumby (161): I'll give you my view. If we imagine a designer who wanted intelligent life, and set up the universe so that intelligent life eventually had to arise somewhere, even though the particular time and place would only be determined by contingent events, then yes, I would say that is compatible with ID as a design-detection project. However, whether such a scenario is compatible with the orthodox Christian doctrine of creation is another matter. It might be construed as compatible with it, but it sounds a lot chancier than the normal understanding of that doctrine. In any case, I don't know of any major TE writer who offers the account you are offering here, except possibly Conway Morris and Lamoureux, so whether it's orthodox or not, it's not the typical TE line. The typical TE line is the "paradoxical" line that even though there is no teleology in natural events, God is still in control because God is mysteriously in control of all events, even random ones. You'll find such claims (vaguely and confusingly argued, with no philosophical or theological precision) plastered all over the columns and comments sections of Biologos, and elsewhere in TE literature and on TE websites. So again, we seem to be arguing at cross-purposes. We are criticizing a form of TE that you aren't defending, and the form of TE that you are defending looks to us a lot like ID. As for Darwinism, my idea of it is shaped by reading Darwin, Gould, Sagan, Dawkins, and Gaylord Simpson, among others. Despite differences in emphasis, the central teaching of all of them is: design in nature is only apparent, not real; and there is no necessity that evolution will end up at any particular place, least of all at intelligent life. That's Darwinism in a nutshell, with all the technical talk stripped away. ID people think that this account of evolution is simply false as science, and also incompatible with Christian theology; most TEs treat it as true as science, and then proceed to try to neutralize its anti-Christian implications with evasive doubletalk. What many ID people are looking for is theistic evolutionists who aren't theistic Darwinists. But they are very rare. Ironically, many Christian ID people feel closer to the vaguely Deist Michael Denton, who is an anti-Darwinian evolutionist, than we do to Christians like Ken Miller or Francis Collins who are Darwinian evolutionists. Denton's view of God's inexorable realization of his design appears to us more in line with traditional Catholic and Protestant understandings of Creation than does most TE writing. T.Timaeus
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
T & SB, Quick clarification - I didn't see SB's comment at 153 before my most recent. Must've crossed in the post. I've a couple of questions arising from your comments above. What do you mean by "Darwinism"? From your use of the term, it doesn't sound at all like the Darwinian evolution I'm more familiar with. About the specified end point required by Christian teleology, can you please elaborate on what this end point is? I said above
It may be that the way the natural world works means that it’s inevitable that sentient life evolves. If you go on to assert that Christian teleology requires us to believe that God intended humans... to occupy the earth, I would disagree.
To elaborate on what I'm proposing above, natural processes including evolution via natural selection and other mechanisms would tend toward producing sentient life. This would be inevitable, given adequate initial conditions (e.g. liquid water) and no catastrophes (e.g. planet destroyed by a meteor). This would mean that sentient life would not be inevitable on this planet (as it could've gotten walloped by a killer meteor), but is inevitable at least in one place in the universe. In other words, all the random processes are in place and operational and gave rise to us humans. However, just as rolling a fair die long enough will always give you a 6, the way the world works means that sentient life will always arise (somewhere). Is this an ID-friendly position?Prof. FX Gumby
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
I, too, would like to thank nullasalus for providing the right questions and Timaeus for confirming their importance.StephenB
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: I have heard your cry from across cyberspace. Do not despair. You will hear from me within a few days. T.Timaeus
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
StephenB: Thanks for all your contributions to this thread, including your witty dialogue. And thanks for your kind words about me. nullasalus: Thanks for leading a good discussion. Hopefully one or two of our readers are getting a more nuanced picture of ID out of it, and also of ways in which ID and TE people might profitably converse. If they have previously gained their picture of ID from places like Biologos, they will have come here with the assumption that ID is anti-evolutionary, anti-scientific, closet creationism. Hopefully you've set in motion a dialogue that will liberate a few people from such misconceptions. T.Timaeus
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
---Prof FXGumby: "I would be curious how many posters here would agree with you [Timaeus]? I know StephenB would not, based on his comments above and elsewhere. I suspect that you may be on the “liberal fringe” of the ID tent! Timeaus and I are saying exactly the same thing, although he is, in a most admirable way, providing more details. The problem is not with Theistic Evolution per se, which, as the name implies, once meant that "God designed evolution," but rather with with Christian Darwinism, which has hijacked the term Theistic Evolution and twisted it to mean something irrational, namely that God designed evolution [Christianity] without designing it [Darwinism]. ---"Several have made the point that TEs need to (can’t?) reconcile the non-teleology of natural evolution with Christian teleology, which requires that evolution be directed." The critical point is whether or not the "natural evolution" that you allude to is teleological [a process designed by God to produce a specified outcome] or anti-teleological [a mindless process with no end or outcome in mind]. The former can be reconciled with Christianity, the latter, which is the position of most [not all] TEs cannotStephenB
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Prof FX Gumby (155): Why do you say that StephenB would not go along with your suggestion? In his most recent post to you, he writes: "The issue is not whether or not evolution is directed but rather if it has been designed, programmed, or otherwise set up in advance to proceed towards a specified end point. Since Darwinism rules out that prospect, it cannot be reconciled with Christianity, which holds that God’s creative effort produced a specified result, that is, one which conformed to his apriori intent. "If we are talking about a non-Darwinistic version of Theistic Evolution–one that allows for the purposeful unfolding of a maturation process–then it is compatible with Christianity because it is an TE/ID formulation." This is just what you were talking about -- a natural process which *necessarily* leads to the production of intelligent species. But if it *necessarily* leads that way, then, StephenB is saying, it must have been set up to do so. And that's design. Thus, one can be a Christian, and intelligent design proponent, and an evolutionist at the same time. As for who else supports such a view, well, to start off with, Michael Behe, a firm evolutionist, has granted the possibility that evolution could proceed in this way. Richard Sternberg, who may not formally call himself an ID person, but is certainly allied in key respects with ID, believes in evolution, prefers a naturalistic model, and sees mathematical structures governing the process which resemble neo-Platonic conceptions -- again, a form of design. Michael Denton, who used to be a Discovery Fellow, but now operates on his own, can be called a small-id proponent; he certainly thinks design is evident in nature, and if you read his second book, you will see that he makes a very strong case for inferring it. He is also a naturalistic evolutionist. Denyse O'Leary, along with StephenB and other Catholics who contribute here, has no problem with evolution per se. And even some ID proponents who do not appear to personally favor an evolutionary scheme, e.g., Bill Dembski and Stephen Meyer, grant freely that nothing in the definition of ID rules out an evolutionary process as God's means of creation. And there are all kinds of "rank and file" ID supporters, not famous people but just everyday scientists, lawyers, teachers, engineers, doctors, writers, etc. who have no problem with evolution at all and who don't insist that God drives evolution through miracles. Again, the key is that all believe that the design in nature is demonstrable. Whether you call the demonstrations scientific, philosophical, or just common sense, the point for these people is that one can determine that the arrangement we see in nature did not happen entirely by accident. Some degree of planning is clearly involved. That's what ID is about. The alternative is the Darwinian approach, which says that all the orderly arrangements of living nature can be explained by blind processes which were not pre-calibrated for any particular results. Two obvious figures representing these two positions are Behe and Dawkins. ID says that Behe has "the best explanation" and that Dawkins has an inferior explanation for what we observe. TEs, or many of them, muddy the waters. Some of them appear to deny that living things are designed at all, on the grounds that if they are, God is responsible for evil, and it is intolerable that God would be responsible for evil. (e.g., Ayala, Miller) Others affirm that living things are indeed designed, but that we can know this only by faith, not by reason, because if we could know it by reason, then faith would not be necessary. (Many of the leading TEs, especially on Biologos.) Of course, both of these arguments are fallacious and can be disproved by any good philosophy sophomore; TEs are mostly churchgoing scientists with very little knowledge of philosophy and have trouble reasoning things like this out, and therefore embarrass themselves with such arguments. I am not making you responsible for these poor TE arguments. I am informing you that they are very common in TE literature, whether you endorse them or not. The protests of many of the columnists and commenters here are based on their deep familiarity with these inadequate TE arguments. Most of us have done our homework before we speak. As I said before, the position you are calling TE is endorsed by only two TEs known to me, Simon Conway Morris and Denis Lamoureux. And in the case of Conway Morris, the endorsement is ambivalent, because he still has not made the break with Darwinian explanation. So I'm not opposing your idea; I'm questioning the appropriateness of calling it a TE idea. If TE means only "evolution caused by God" then it is a TE idea; but in practice TE has acquired a number of other aspects which narrow its meaning; and most current TEs have hitched their wagons to Darwinian and other anti-teleological descriptions of nature. T.Timaeus
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Timaeus, I'm aware of the broad tent nature of ID, which your post at 94 outlines. The scope of ID positions (and TE ones) makes most generalisations impossible and conversations sometimes messy. I'm glad that you believe that ID is not intrinsically opposed to evolution and that it's compatible with wholly natural causes. Based on some of your comments above, I mistakenly thought you thought otherwise. You say that
As for the theological question, the solution you have proposed is compatible with orthodox Christianity. Many Christian ID proponents would take it seriously.
I would be curious how many posters here would agree with you? I know StephenB would not, based on his comments above and elsewhere. I suspect that you may be on the "liberal fringe" of the ID tent!Prof. FX Gumby
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Chris @150, In your comment 68, you say:
I wonder, if you had never seen a termite, but came across an old, preserved termite nest – still exhibiting vast amounts of dFSCI – would you ever consider that what you were seeing was a product of purely natural processes?
Yes, someone in that situation could validly suspect design. However, concluding or even making a solid case for design would require a lot more research. We can only conclude design* when we learn about the designer - your termites. As you know if you ever played Clue/Cluedo, only suspecting the Designer with the Cosmic Wrench in the Conservatory is not enough to win you the game. A number of artifacts have been discovered that have caused people to incorrectly suspect design. Near perfect stone circles in the arctic appear to have been designed, but actually have been formed by freeze - thaw action. Thus, a lot more than simple appearance of design is required for a solid conclusion. As for crop circles, there's more than a suspicion that these are designed. * Do termites count as intelligent designers? I think I'll leave that question to someone else, maybe Joseph.Prof. FX Gumby
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
---Prof FXGumby: "Several have made the point that TEs need to (can’t?) reconcile the non-teleology of natural evolution with Christian teleology, which requires that evolution be directed." In my case, I specifically referred to the Christian Darwinist species of the Theistic Evolutionist genus. Forget about the word "directed" since it causes too much confusion. The issue is not whether or not evolution is directed but rather if it has been designed, programmed, or otherwise set up in advance to proceed towards a specified end point. Since Darwinism rules out that prospect, it cannot be reconciled with Christianity, which holds that God's creative effort produced a specified result, that is, one which conformed to his apriori intent. If we are talking about a non-Darwinistic version of Theistic Evolution--one that allows for the purposeful unfolding of a maturation process--then it is compatible with Christianity because it is an TE/ID formulation. Only when Theistic Evolution embraces non-design Darwinistic processes are they incompatible with Christianity because Darwinistic processes are, by definition, purposeless and aimless, which means that they do not aim toward a specified end point. Thus, [a] Christian Darwinism, which does not aim toward a specified end point cannot be reconciled with [b] Christian evolution, which does aim toward a specified end point. The question that is being put to you, therefore, is not that complicated: How do you justify the irrational and self-contradictory notion of Christian Darwinism? If you are not a Christian Darwinist, then the question doesn't apply to you.StephenB
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
In fact, I am a Jewish-Catholic-Calvinist-Arminian! TULIPS are for PANSIES!
Firstly, LOL! Secondly:
I’ll assume you mean that there is a law of gravitation, and that this law causes various phenomenon. Correct me if i am wrong.
No that's correct.
The “law” itself, causes nothing. The “law” is merely a description. It is a statement about something. A statement about something is not a cause of that thing. How can a statement about a thing be the cause of the thing which it is a statement about?
I never said gravity causes itself. In fact I said that laws ultimately must be caused by a Lawgiver. However, laws can cause other things. Just because the law of gravity is a statement about the law of gravity (what else would you expect a law to be?) doesn't mean laws don't cause certain things to happen. All I was saying is that it's fair and even desirable to make a distinction between something like a law which is directly caused by agency and those things which are caused directly by law.tragic mishap
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Prof FX Gumby (149): Sorry that our conversation was interrupted by a long off-topic digression. It wouldn't surprise me if you missed some of my previous answers in all the clutter. I'll respond only to the point about teleology, as I wasn't involved in the other argument. In your last paragraph above, you write: "Several have made the point that TEs need to (can’t?) reconcile the non-teleology of natural evolution with Christian teleology, which requires that evolution be directed. Not so. It may be that the way the natural world works means that it’s inevitable that sentient life evolves." For a full response to this possibility, and how it sits in relation to the views of various ID and TE writers, please have a look, or another look, at the last 4 paragraphs of my post 94 above. Note in particular the part starting with: "On the other hand, there are ID proponents who have no problem with purely natural causes, even for major changes in body plans, but bring in ID concepts under your second suggestion. They suspect that biological change may be subsumed under some grand designed process." In the light of my full explanation, I hope you will see that what you are calling a TE position is actually an ID position. Or, more accurately, a synthesis of ID with theistic evolution. One of the problems in discussing these matters is that people employ terms and abbreviations such as ID and TE without first finding out what they mean, by carefully reading the writings of those who support these positions. I have spent quite a few years now mastering the writings of dozens of TE and ID proponents, and I have a very good sense of all the shades within each position, as well as the general thrust of each position. It is not required by ID that evolution be "directed," if by that you mean directly steered by divine intervention. That is an option within ID, but not part of the definition. The key thing about ID is the detection of design. The means of implementing the design (miraculous or not) are not central to ID. Both TE and atheist critics of ID continually get this wrong, because they refuse to read what ID writers say about their own theory, and rely instead upon rumor and hearsay. I don't rely upon rumor and hearsay. After reading countless books and articles by almost all the major ID proponents, I've nailed down what each believes pretty well. If you haven't done that kind of in-depth, academic survey of the ID writings, I would suggest that you trust me on this. In simple terms: ID is not intrinsically opposed to evolution. ID does not require intervention or miracles. ID is compatible with wholly natural causes. ID is opposed only to anti-teleological explanations of life and evolution. The solution you have proposed is teleological. Therefore, it is an option within ID. As for the theological question, the solution you have proposed is compatible with orthodox Christianity. Many Christian ID proponents would take it seriously. The only ones who would reject it outright are those who reject evolution outright on the basis of a certain reading of Genesis. I'm not one of those. Nor are many of the columnists and commenters here. Don't assume that all ID proponents are "creationists" in the narrow sense in which that term is commonly used. T.Timaeus
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
Hi PFX Gumby, I would appreciate a response to the point I made here about the design of "biological organisms": https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/theistic-evolutionists-how-do-you-see-intelligent-design/comment-page-2/#comment-380589 And let me assure you, I for one am certainly being very honest with myself regarding the empirical support for evolutionary theory, particularly neo-darwinism: it is non-existent. If this wasn't the case, then I would become a theistic evolutionist... though not one who believes, like you, that God was actually surprised when two armed, two legged, hairy humans turned up. As for the explanatory power of ID, try reading "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen Meyer. If you can provide an alternative, better explanation for the cell, I'd really love to hear it.Chris Doyle
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
Apologies for my absence yesterday. Very busy. I can see things have been busy here too. Rather than resurrect a now-stale point by point discussion, I'll make a few general comments. Re my point that the science of ID has very little empirical support and little coherent theory, several have responded with the "I'm rubber, you're glue" schoolyard defense. You try to point out the shortcomings of evolutionary science. Please don't insult my intelligence (or yours). If you are honest with yourselves, you will admit that evolutionary theory currently has greater empirical support and explanatory power than ID. ID needs to do much more work if this is to change. You all know this. Re teleology. Several have made the point that TEs need to (can't?) reconcile the non-teleology of natural evolution with Christian teleology, which requires that evolution be directed. Not so. It may be that the way the natural world works means that it's inevitable that sentient life evolves. If you go on to assert that Christian teleology requires us to believe that God intended humans (specifically, with two arms, two legs, hair and strategically placed noses) to occupy the earth, I would disagree.Prof. FX Gumby
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
Well, I've enjoyed seeing this new evolutionist tactic, I must say. Step 1. Turn up with no intention of engaging in debate, merely smearing the nasty evolution-deniers. Step 2. Denying that they (or indeed, any evolutionist) ever makes nasty, rude and offensive remarks. Step 3. Expressing outrage whenever anybody claims Step 2 has happened. Step 4. Making excuses when direct questions are put to them (before getting themselves deliberately banned by escalating the insults). I'm sure Astroman has now turned his attention to evolutionist forums (where the nastiness is far, far greater than anything seen here) giving them all a really hard time when they "alienate and insult people, and especially people with an open mind about the possibility of some form of" evolution.Chris Doyle
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
tragic, I'll assume you mean that there is a law of gravitation, and that this law causes various phenomenon. Correct me if i am wrong. The law of gravitation states:
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. - Newton's law of universal gravitation
The "law" itself, causes nothing. The "law" is merely a description. It is a statement about something. A statement about something is not a cause of that thing. How can a statement about a thing be the cause of the thing which it is a statement about?Mung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
I’m a Jewish-Catholic-Calvinist.
I lied. :( Deepest apologies. In fact, I am a Jewish-Catholic-Calvinist-Arminian! TULIPS are for PANSIES!Mung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
As for laws, would you care to provide an example of a physical law which acts as a cause?
Ok I'll play. Gravity. Your move. :Dtragic mishap
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
tm,
A book about QM by RC Sproul? Pardon me but I think that’s a bit out of his element. I know it’s out of my element.
No, not a book on QM. A book on chance. Apparently also out of your element. Read it first, before you dismiss it as being out of his element. For more, read Stanley L. Jaki. A physicist. http://www.sljaki.com/ As for laws, would you care to provide an example of a physical law which acts as a cause? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/ Or is that also out of your element? Whence then, the "pfft"?Mung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
It’s in Seattle.
More specifically, Redmond. (A suburb of Seattle.) A REAL PLACE!
People are banned for being uncivil.
I've been banned for incivility. Fortunately, that condition is temporary. ;)Mung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Astroman,
I didn’t see a location for the “Biologic Institute” and its research facilities. Is it an institute in name only?
It's in Seattle.Clive Hayden
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
Astroman,
If you ID supporters want ID to be accepted as something legitimate and popular, the last thing you should do is alienate and insult people, and especially people with an open mind about the possibility of some form of intelligent design.
Chris Doyle expressly asked in what way you would accept ID, and you're answer was "I don't really know" because in reality you feign having an open mind towards ID. You're the agressor here, don't play the victim.Clive Hayden
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
Chance, as a cause, does not exist, and even QM does not suggest otherwise.
A book about QM by RC Sproul? Pardon me but I think that's a bit out of his element. I know it's out of my element.
There’s real doubt about whether “laws” actually cause things to happen.
pfft.tragic mishap
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Careful T. Someone might mistake you for a YEC what with all your heated posts lately. Don't you know only YECs get ticked off?tragic mishap
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
Astroman,
I find it interesting and revealing that you assume I’m an “evolutionist”. Do you see evolutionist monsters in your nightmares?
I do. "The world of science and evolution is far more nameless and elusive and like a dream than the world of poetry and religion; since in the latter images and ideas remain themselves eternally, while it is the whole idea of evolution that identities melt into each other as they do in a nightmare."~G.K. ChestertonClive Hayden
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Astroman,
That is not true and you know it.
People are banned for being uncivil.Clive Hayden
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply