[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> site to learn that some of them are tweekers that claim that their god   
   >>>> was involved in guiding the evolution of life on earth.   
   >>>   
   >>> I have read their web site and I see nothing anywhere about forcing   
   >>> biological evolution into conforming with their   
   >>> Biblical interpretation. Feel free to point it out if I have missed   
   >>> it.   
   >>   
   >> You must have missed the part about tweekers,   
   >   
   > It's a big site and I can't find anything about tweekers. Please quote   
   > what they actually say or at least point me to the actual part of the   
   > site where they say it.   
      
    From the link that I originally put up:   
      
   https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-   
   rom-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism   
      
   QUOTE:   
   BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural   
   world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too.   
   END QUOTE:   
      
      
   https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation   
      
   This comes after the quote about evolutionary creationism that I   
   originally put up.   
      
   QUOTE:   
   We believe that God acts purposefully in creation, just as he does in   
   our lives, and that he continues to actively uphold and sustain creation.   
   END QUOTE:   
      
   Tweekers acting purposefully in creation that they include life as part   
   of the creation.  The reason to believe exIDiots also believe that their   
   god is still working on the creation.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   >> and the claims that their   
   >> god evolved humans in his own image.   
   >   
   > How does that contradict science?   
      
   They do not have to contradict science, just make the same claims about   
   limits of natural processes that Behe does about the flagellum.  Like   
   these guys Behe understands that evolution is a fact of nature, but that   
   doesn't stop him from his science denial attempts.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> That is exactly what Saint   
   >>>>>> Augustine warned against doing.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> This is just the next stage of science denial that some of them will use   
   >>>>>> their acceptance of some of the science to cover up.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That is pure conjecture on your part.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is what some of them are already doing.  Some have given up on the   
   >>>> science denial, but some are still looking for what they need to fit   
   >>>> their god into what has happened in nature.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If they had given up on the science denial that Saint Ausgustine warned   
   >>>> Christians about, it would not matter how biological evolution fit into   
   >>>> their literal interpretation of the Bible.   
   >>>   
   >>> Funny how you can't give even one specific example of such denial.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Some of them   
   >>>>>> likely have deistic notions like Denton, and do not require any designer   
   >>>>>> interference with evolution, but some of them are tweekers like Behe,   
   >>>>>> and still remain under Saint Augustine's admonishment.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> More conjecture on your part. Unless of course you can provide   
   >>>>> specific examples.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They admit to it on their web site.   
   >>>   
   >>> Where on their web site do they admit it?   
   >>>   
   >>>> Some of them are still tweekers   
   >>>> like Behe, and would be the same type of science denier as Behe is.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yet again, you can't give a single specific example.   
   >>>   
   >>>> In order to abide by Saint Augustine's admonishment they wouldn't need to   
   >>>> limit biological evolution due to their Biblical beliefs.  They claim   
   >>>> that their god made humans in his own image using biological evolution..   
   >>>   
   >>>> You do understand that there is a theological debate about what "in his   
   >>>> image" means, right?  So what literal belief are they supporting and   
   >>>> should they even be trying to support any of the interpretations?  Which   
   >>>> Biblical beliefs are they willing to falsify using science?   
   >>>   
   >>> The reason you can't give any specific examples is that you are   
   >>> presenting their case upside down. They are not trying to *force* any   
   >>> science into anything; to the extent that they are *forcing* anything,   
   >>> they are forcing their traditional Bible interpretation into   
   >>> accommodating what science tells us.   
   >>>   
   >>> St Augustine would undoubtedly have heartily endorsed what they are   
   >>> doing.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> These creationists are claiming that some of the existing science is   
   >>>>>> consistent with their Biblical interpretation, but it is not consistent   
   >>>>>> with what other creationists believe.  If we rewrote the Bible today   
   >>>>>> with our current understanding of cosmology we would still be wrong   
   >>>>>> about some things, and they would have to be rewritten at some later   
   >>>>>> date.  Saint Augustine's admonishment makes it unnecessary to rewrite or   
   >>>>>> reinterpret the Bible.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)