There's no need to be sorry, just offer something of substance to discuss and we'll be on our way. (This was basically my appeal to Peter and it is my continued appeal to you also.)

I think you are missing the point of a blog. An article is often intentionally superficial for several reasons. But it is intended that interested persons will then do their own research and/or discuss and seek further clarification of the matter with the author of the blog. You have not discussed anything, but continue to make generalised statements when here I am willing to discuss details with you, if only you raised one point of substance for discussion.

Before you post again, please familiarize yourself with our comments policy to avoid having further comments on this post withheld.

I hesitate at having to point out that once again you have not been very specific with your comments. Did you want to have an actual discussion about how and why you think that theistic evolution is coherent, or did you simply want to air your opinions?

I mean, if you want to discuss why you “found Anderson's criticism of Alexander astoundingly naive”, then it will not do to simply make the statement. I am happy to consider your rejoinders but I cannot respond to vague generalisations.

Much worse though was your assumption that I would likely “argue [that] black is white over.” This I take it is your way of saying that I would deny what is demonstrably true? The irony of this statement is that it was you who made broad unsupported truth claims about what facts are and what such so-called facts have disproved, without qualification. Now somehow I am apparently implicated as having taken a position in direct opposition to these mysterious “facts” despite you having not made any comments of substance to which I can respond. We have a saying for that where I come from. What the…?

No, they earn the label for literalising what is sensibly within the realm of science already, although I think you (agreeing with the consensus here) would argue black is white over.

Personally I find theistic evolution (if that truly fits me, I care not) satisfying and coherent. I found Anderson's criticism of Alexander astoundingly naive (in the parts I skim read. I have no access to Alexander so in depth study would be pointless).

As an indication of my POV on this, I think Father Coyne puts it well : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc&feat…

Ok Frodo, I really do not know what you mean?

Do evangelical fundies earn the label of “cave men” because of the “fact” that dead men can't rise from the dead also? And what do you even mean by “disproven by fact”; what is it that such “facts” have disproven?

I assume given the context of the post, you are referring to creation/evolution controversy, but there was very little substance in your comment. Elephant hurling does not a rational argument make. And until you can explain yourself better, your lament concerning faith really has no context either. In fact I suspect you are playing a little fast and loose with the word “fact” also. But we shall see?

For example:

Evolution teaches design by chance; life came about from a random process of interaction within non-living chemicals
The Bible teaches God created from nothing by the power of His Word (Gen 1)

Evolution teaches that death was the necessary antecedent of man.
The Bible teaches man was the cause of death; death came after sin (Gen 3:17-19, Romans 5:12)

Evolution teaches death is a permanent part of our history and our future.
The Bible teaches that death is an enemy (an intruder) that was not part of God’s original creation (Gen 1-2; 1 Cor 15:26) and that it will not be a permanent part of our future either (Rev 21:4)

Evolution teaches that many animals changed (evolved) into other animals over millions of years.
The Bible teaches that God created specific plants, animals and mankind to reproduce after their kind (Gen 1:11-12, 21-22, 24-25, 27-28)

But here is what I would find helpful so I am not misunderstanding the position you are presenting. From the list below, which if any do you consider to be observable examples of what you would call evolution?

- Helicobacter Pylori developing a resistance to antibiotics?
- The sizes of finch beaks changing on the Galapagos as a result of food shortage?
- The population of peppered moths changing from predominantly light to predominantly dark as a result of the industrial revolution?
- The arrival of the short-legged Ancon sheep?

Alternatively, give some clear examples of your own and explain so that I can know what you mean when you say things like, “in my own experiments… the cells adapted to the environment in which i put them.” I think that my first item on the list above might fall into this category?

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

many young people have been taught their entire lives that either evolution is a lie, or Christianity is.

when they go on to further study, where they can see evolution first hand, many fall away from god because their parents did not teach them that our god is a god of truth and that truth should always be more important than dogma.

My brother found studying science challenging. not because scientists were lying to him in some kind of global conspiracy, but because simple experiments demonstrated the truth of something he had been taught was a lie.

in my own experiments, the adaptation of cells-(the cornerstone of evolution), caused my experiment to go awry as the cells adapted to the environment in which i put them. fortunately, i had had time years before to come to realise that the scientific conspiracy of evolution is a myth and that any scientist who could disprove evolution would win a nobel prize and be famous for generations.

if you assume that he would be paid well to keep silent, consider that he would be paid be every talk show to come on, paid for every speaking engagement, and have his own department, with offers of grants showering like rain.

I thank you for shedding some additional light on your query.

If choice has any bearing on the matter, I'd choose creation over evolution. But what bearing does choice have on the matter? It is implied that it does bear on the matter.

Implied by what… the post title? Allow me dispel your concerns then. I was not implying that one's choice somehow determined the truthfulness of the matter. Apart from the rather obvious non-sequitur that this presents, it's clear from the post what “why we must choose” means, and virtually impossible to discern from the title alone without making some rather unfounded assumptions.