Are Theistic Evolutionists Intellectually Schizophrenic?

[lucaspa]

lucaspa said: Ah, yes. Another atheist who wants to use evolution to deny theism. And you want to let him! Shame on you, Crusadar.

There are at least two ways that God can interfere with evolution and be indectectable to science. Both mecahnisms have been discovered by atheists, so we cannot say that it is apologists seeking to find a gap.

Sure there are, if you disregard the Genesis as the foundational book to every other book in the Bible.

It astounds me the spiritually baseless long windedness that you put forth. And yet you still deny Christ as Lord and Savior for you mention nothing of Him in your posts and then you have the gumption of accusing someone else of not being Christian?

Where in your opening post was any appeal to Genesis? Genesis 1 was written after Exodus. God had already shown Himself as Creator to the Hebrews by creating Israel as a nation. Genesis is not the foundational book of the Bible. The whole thing could disappear and not affect Judeo-Christianity at all. All that is needed is the declaration that God created, and that is found, sans mechanism, in many other places in the OT. Exodus and the gospels are the foundational books.

I never said you weren't Christian. I said your ideas did not match Christianity's ideas on the same subject. I also stated that your ideas, far from helping Christianity, will destroy it. You haven't addressed either of those points.

Your other complaint seems to be that I don't use the language you want to hear. Tough. You do use the liturgical language and yet accept the basic statement of faith of atheism. THe liturgical language you want doesn't mean a thing in this discussion.

I find it amusing to see you using atheistic arguments so frequently. Are you sure you're not an atheist working undercover?

It seems that is all you find of your faith in God to be lucas, a source of amusement and nothing more. Belief in God is not simply shown by a man stating that he believes in a creed and that will grant him eternal life - he must live his faith. Undercover atheist? Please, would an atheist proclaim that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior, and live for Christ in everything that he does?

Where in that statement was there any reference to my faith, Crusadar? The amusement comes from your arguments.

Now, an undercover atheist might indeed mouth the words. Just like a spy in communist China is going to praise the Chinese leadership. I have no idea what you do in your life; we can't see it. All we have is what you post on the boards. What you live via the posts you make is atheism. You advocate atheist ideas as tho they are true. By your own criteria, what you live is not "belief in God". Notice that is your criteria. Not mine. Nor is that necessarily my opinion of your inner faith. However, what you are showing to the world is atheism. Is that what you want to do?

 

[Crusadar]

lucaspasaid: That "stands outside" contradicts the idea "sustainer of all creation".

Without your spiritual glasses on I suppose you would find any and all contradictions where there are none, simply because it is not in accord with your evolutionary nonsense. I however see none.

I submit that you are accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. IOW, if there is a "natural" process then God is absent. That goes totally against the basic beliefs of Christianity.

Submission considered, and rejected due to lack of faith. Is not evolution a natural process – requiring not God? Is there the faintest support of God having started the process ever mentioned in any dominant evolutionary theories? NO. Since evolution requires not God, it was not the process God used - as we do believe He does exist.

Theistic evolution accepts that God is part of all the universe. That indeed God is the sustainer. If God ever withdrew His countenance from the universe, all the "natural" processes would stop.

If you accept thus then it is obvious you trust your own interpretation of God’s creation more than the word of God, and are in fact worshipping creation and not the creator.

It is ironic that Darwin understood Christianity a lot better than creationists. In the Fontispiece of Origin is the quote:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion

Your play with semantics is nothing more than entertaining - as there are no differences between theistic or natural evolution since God is no where to be found. However it is very doubtful Darwin understood the complexity of life before writing Origins - sorry but I am not well versed in evolutionary nonsense nor do I care much for it - so I can't really comment.

You mean you don't know God exists thru personal experience of Him? Yes, the scriptures give at least two different accounts of creation.

I have felt the presence of God in my life many times, and it was only through total surrender of myself to Him. God wants nothing less than total submission – it is only then that He will reveal you the truth. It is obvious your conclusions are unsupported since scripture tells only of one account – as recorded in the book of Genesis, so it was written, so it had been done.

So who is right? Both. Scripture gives you the who and why of creation as inspired by God to the human authors. Science gives you the how of creation as written by God in His Creation.

There is only one God, for there is only one truth – His word.

What you want, Crusadar, is science to tell you God exists. But since you think like an atheist, you can only science to tell you God exists if you have gaps in the "natural" processes; that puts you up against both science and Christianity. The Christian doctrine of creation says there shouldn't be such gaps.

I require not science to show me the existence of God, for I trust in God totally since I do believe in everything that God says, remember? It is obvious your concern is being in agreement with men and not God, that explains a lot.

1. So what if the atheist believes in evolution but not in God?

It is a deciding factor, as it tells which side one is really on, God’s side or man’s. God’s word does not tell us anything of evolution so it is not God that you believe, but the other.

2. How can there by something wrong about atheist believing the same thing you do when you believe the same thing atheists do? As I say, you believe the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God.


It is wrong because they believe not in God and evolution justifies their belief. How can evolution serve to justify not believing in God, and in believieving in Him? However you need to address the question of how evolutionary “science” can lead men to a correct understanding of our origin and thus see the need for a Creator? If it is possible then it would mean that fallible men using a man made (and therefore fallible) methodology with an incorrect postulate of atheism can arrive at the truth about God.

What can be more illogical than that by using a system of thought that contradicts one of the basic postulates of that system! In other words how can it be said that God used evolution, when the underlying premise behind evolution is that we are the result of natural processes therefore God holds no right to us nor was He responsible for creating anything therefore He is quite unnecessary. So where does the idea of God fit in the evolutionary process as asked before?

You don't have "the absolute authority of God's word". You have your authority of what you say God's word is. Since you aren't God, you don't have much authority. Also, since God wrote two books, the Bible does not have priority over the other one. Read the first quote in my signature.

Ah, a misunderstanding. I do have the authority of God’s word, for I believe and trust in all it says – that is where the authority comes from. You however have a book which isn’t to be taken literally so obviously you should doubt if any of it is true.

Me, God? No. A child of God, yes. First however I would like to say that I am simply an unworthy sinner deserving nothing and yet because I accept His gift of salvation it makes me no more worthy than anyone else.

I know however what you are attempting to do – an attempt to discredit someone erroneously and not addressing the issue – which was my standing on the truth of God in its entirety. A very elementary tactic, but we are all only human and do need that extra boost of pride to keep us going – but I said no such thing that I was God and you know it.

However, I do believe in His word whole heartedly and am simply doing what I am instructed by Christ to do as scripture tells me.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ’s, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ’s, even so are we Christ’s. For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:” 2 Corinthians 10:3-8

2. Whatever the reason you think you do this for, the effect of your actions is to destroy Christianity. How can that be for God's glory?

The reason is very clear to me, and it is to instill genuine faith in God. If we believe not what He says, can there be genuine faith? How can we truly be Christ’s followers if we do not believe His word? Have you forgotten that Christ did not come to make peace but to make war – spiritual war that is. But then you do not seem to acknowledge this so it matters not what I say.

If you think that Christianity is being destroyed because of my actions you are sadly mistaken, for it has increased my faith in leaps and bounds. For if Christianity is true, then it should be the least of our worries that it does not agree with evolutionary science - however real science confirms God. It is for God’s glory when we fearlessly and adamnantly stand on the authority of His word and not lollygag and be undecided which side to be on so – to be ridiculed because of one’s standing on the word of God is very much for God’s glory.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437"

“Sound science”, not evolutionary nonsense, there is a difference you know. And 1832, talk about ancient!

 

[Ark Guy]

So who is right? Both. Scripture gives you the who and why of creation as inspired by God to the human authors. Science gives you the how of creation as written by God in His Creation

The bible says man was created from the dust..not a monkey. then the bible says Eve was created from mans side...not evolution.

if God used evolution...then why the biblical deception? Why not just say there were ages instead of days?
Why not say evolution was the process? Why the biblical deception?

 

[Ark Guy]

Could God also be deceiving us when it comes to the resurrection? is it just another allegorical story?

 

[Didaskomenos]

A flat earth? This sounds like more fabricated anti-bible rhetoric.

No where does the bible say the earth is flat.

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htm

 

[Ark Guy]

Didaskomenos,
Sounds like Robert J. Schadewald has presented a bunch of old tired reasons refuted many years ago.

Is there one of Schadewald points in particular that you are fond of which shows a flat earth?

 

[Plan 9]

And it's such a cute tail! OK

I got as a gift for joining a dog pack. btw, if you know how to resign from a dog pack, I badly need to know!

"Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss that they do about the "randomness" of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection, the other side of the process. It is not necessary that mutation should be random in order for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance. ...
One could imagine a theoretical world in which mutations were biased toward improvement. Mutations in this hypothetical world would be non-random not just in the sense that mutations induced by X-rays are non-random: these hypothetical mutations would be systematically biased to keep one jump ahead of selection and anticipate the needs of the organism ...
Darwinians wouldn't mind if such providential mutations were provided. It wouldn't undermine Darwinism, though it would put paid to its claims for exclusivity: a tailwind on a transatlantic flight can speed up your arrival in an agreeable way, and this doesn't undermine your belief that the primary force that got you home is the jet engine." R Dawkins, Climbing Mt. Improbable, pp 80- 82.

"Indeed, all the biologists I have queried on this point have agreed with me that there are no sure marks of natural, as opposed to artificial, selection. In chapter 5, we traded in the concept of strict biological possibility and impossibility for a graded notion of biological probability, but even in its terms, it is not clear how one could grade organisms as 'probably' or 'very probably' or 'extremely probably' the products of artificial selection...It would be foolhardy, however, for any defender of neo-Darwinism to claim that contemporary evolution theory gives one the power to read history so finely from present data as to rule out the earlier historical presence of rational designers -- a wildly implausible fantasy, but a possibility after all." Darwin's Dangerous Idea, pp. 317-318

Thank you so much.

I find it interesting that I've posed the same question three times to two Creationists, both of whom have written rather insulting posts, and one of whom posted this about himself:

I have felt the presence of God in my life many times, and it was through total surrender, God wants nothing less than total submission – it is only then He will reveal to you His true nature.

but neither of them cold be bothered to define an expression for me which they happily bandied about and that they got from an athiest.

You, on the other hand, patiently and kindly answer every question I ask you and encourage me to ask more. In addition, you never trade insut for insult, even though you are frequently insulted for no reason I can fathom. I've never see you ignore a single post written to you and I find your answers quite concise; not long-winded at all, unless the definition of of a long-winded post is "that post which has actual content"; you consistantly take the time and trouble to answer each poster's question as thoroughly as possible, which shows respect.

hmm...doesn't the Bible say something about knowing a Christian by his fruits?

 

[nephilimiyr]

What can be more illogical than that by using a system of thought that contradicts one of the basic postulates of that system! In other words how can it be said that God used evolution, when the underlying premise behind evolution is that we are the result of natural processes therefore God holds no right to us nor was He responsible for creating anything therefore He is quite unnecessary. So where does the idea of God fit in the evolutionary process as asked before?

That is an interesting question. If the premise behind evolution is true how can we make sense of theistic evolution? I'm not a believer in theistic evolution but if I was I'd have to answer like this.

The premise of evolution says that our origins are the result of natural processes I don't see how this totally rules out how a diety may have been the cause of that process.

If we believe we exist because of natural laws how can anyone rule out that a God used those naturally laws over a length of time to form the universe?

In short, the lack of a who in the definition of evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of there being a who, it just doesn't address it.

 

[Ark Guy]

nephilimiyr,
The problem being is that evolution isn't a natural law.

 

[wblastyn]

nephilimiyr,
The problem being is that evolution isn't a natural law.

Yes it is, we observe evolution in nature just like we observe gravity.

 

[Ark Guy]

wblastyn:
Yes it is, we observe evolution in nature just like we observe gravity

...you made me chuckle.

 

[wblastyn]

wblastyn:
Yes it is, we observe evolution in nature just like we observe gravity

...you made me chuckle.

Scientific laws describe how the universe works, the Law of Gravity is "what goes up must come down". Now evolution is "descent with modification and natural selection" - are descentants of a population of organisms modified and naturally selectioned? Yes they are. Hence Evolution is a law and a Theory (the theory explains the law).

 

[Ark Guy]

To date there is no, and I repeat NO examples of a series pf mutations that has caused a morphological change to an animal species to the point that the animal is now considered belonging to a new genera.

Considering the above...how can evolution be a law?????????

 

[wblastyn]

To date there is no, and I repeat NO examples of a series pf mutations that has caused a morphological change to an animal species to the point that the animal is now considered belonging to a new genera.

Considering the above...how can evolution be a law?????????

In reality all there is is species. Genera, family, order, etc are just species that are much further apart.

 

[Ark Guy]

well then wblastyn, to then use your words...there is no examples of morphological mutations that have caused animal species to change to a point that they are much further apart.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

well then wblastyn, to then use your words...there is no examples of morphological mutations that have caused animal species to change to a point that they are much further apart.

Wrong.

There's a graph here showing the effect of a series of morphological changes (in cranial capacity) that caused the genus Homo to diverge from the genus Australopithecus - http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/kennethmiller.shtml.

Your move.

 

[platzapS]

if God used evolution...then why the biblical deception? Why not just say there were ages instead of days?
Why not say evolution was the process? Why the biblical deception?

Would God really explain the complexities of descent with modification to a tribe of wise but ancient nomads? All the Israelites would need to know was that there was a loving God who made everything, and that God cares for his creations. If God had told of evolution in the Bible, it would have been extremely confusing to people who did not know about bacteria, DNA, geology, etc.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I think the man is absolutely correct. The “intellectually schizophrenic” referred to is that by adding God only when convenient and not as the sole designer and sustainer of all creation - how do we know that there is a God who only stands outside and guides the evolutionary process? If that were the case, then the only way you would know that such a being truly exists is through what has been revealed in the Scriptures – but hey scripture gives us a different account of creation, so who is right? Man’s interpretations of the evidence or the written account of what God has done?

No one is hiding lewis, I would say that those who believe that God used evolution are the one's that are hiding. They are hiding behind their sacred cow of evolution insisting that that is how God created. Of course not realizing that the nonbeliever also believes in evolution but not in God. There is something quiet wrong when atheists believe in the same thing you do. Also with the absoulute authority of God's word on my side I have no fear to go into spiritual battle with anyone as my sword is always sharp - so bring it on, for I do this only for God's glory.

I believe in Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Atheists do, too. I don't see the problem.

 

[Plan 9]

Crusader you are so right.

The Thiestic Evo Sect really are “intellectually schizophrenic”

Both have been shown to be scientifically impossible but evolutionISM forces you to be “intellectually schizophrenic”

We all know who is being slurred, but I would still like to know the meaning of this slur.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspasaid: That "stands outside" contradicts the idea "sustainer of all creation".

Without your spiritual glasses on I suppose you would find any and all contradictions where there are none, simply because it is not in accord with your evolutionary nonsense. I however see none.

That's denial. But not explanation or justification of denial. The idea of "sustainer of all creation" is not a concept of biological evolution. It's a Christain concept.

I submit that you are accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. IOW, if there is a "natural" process then God is absent. That goes totally against the basic beliefs of Christianity.

Submission considered, and rejected due to lack of faith. Is not evolution a natural process – requiring not God? Is there the faintest support of God having started the process ever mentioned in any dominant evolutionary theories? NO. Since evolution requires not God, it was not the process God used - as we do believe He does exist.

" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. " NO scientific theory says whether God is required or not required. Because science CAN'T comment! Do you understand the words "can not"?

What you have stated again is the basic faith of atheism. It's nice of you to support my arguments so fully, but it's a shame that you don't realize what you are doing. Atheists believe that evolution does not require God. But that's not part of the theory. However, if you want mention of God starting the process, try Darwin:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Darwin even mentions God being involved. The key phrase is "secondary process":

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Now, this harkens back to the Fontispiece of Origin and the first quote:
"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

All you have done is to show that you don't know the thinking of people about evolution, particularly Darwin, and that you are accepting atheism.

Theistic evolution accepts that God is part of all the universe. That indeed God is the sustainer. If God ever withdrew His countenance from the universe, all the "natural" processes would stop.

If you accept thus then it is obvious you trust your own interpretation of God’s creation more than the word of God, and are in fact worshipping creation and not the creator.

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Hebrews 1:3

Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's dominion over the earth? Job 38:33

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Psalms 19:1

The heavens are yours, and yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it. Psalm 89:11

Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail. Isaiah 51:6

It is ironic that Darwin understood Christianity a lot better than creationists. In the Fontispiece of Origin is the quote:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion

Your play with semantics is nothing more than entertaining - as there are no differences between theistic or natural evolution since God is no where to be found. However it is very doubtful Darwin understood the complexity of life before writing Origins - sorry but I am not well versed in evolutionary nonsense nor do I care much for it - so I can't really comment.

The quote is theology. Notice the title of Butler's work. We are not discussing the details of evolutionary theory, but whether theistic evolution is schizophrenic in relation to Christianity. Your topic, remember?

There is a big difference between theistic and atheistic (what you call natural) evolution. The difference is that theistic evolutionists agree with Butler and atheistic evolutionists disagree. In the material processes, no, there is no disagreement. However, is God a necessary part of the material processes? Theistic evolutionists say "yes" and atheistic evolutionists say "no". You agree with the atheists. Why? Why do you say that anything "natural" is without God?

You mean you don't know God exists thru personal experience of Him? Yes, the scriptures give at least two different accounts of creation.

I have felt the presence of God in my life many times, and it was only through total surrender of myself to Him. God wants nothing less than total submission – it is only then that He will reveal you the truth. It is obvious your conclusions are unsupported since scripture tells only of one account – as recorded in the book of Genesis, so it was written, so it had been done.

Crusadar, go to Barnes and Nobles and look at all the books there giving commentaries on Genesis. There were 10 when I was there. All of them agreed that there were 2 separate creation accounts: Genesis 1:1 -2:4a and Genesis 2:4b thru the end of Genesis 3.

However, since you say you have felt the presence of God, then why did you say the only evidence of God is revelation in scripture. Doesn't your personal experience count for you?

Also, why is revelation in scripture or thru personal experience insufficient evidence? Why do you require science to verify the existence of God for you?

So who is right? Both. Scripture gives you the who and why of creation as inspired by God to the human authors. Science gives you the how of creation as written by God in His Creation.

There is only one God, for there is only one truth – His word.

Of course there is only one God. But that wasn't the issue, was it? The question was where we learn about creation. The answer is that we learn about creation thru two sources, both from God. We learn about the who and why of creation thru scripture. We learn about the how of creation thru God's Creation. However, you just denied God by saying there is only one source -- "His word". Why are you denying God as Creator by denying His Creation?

What you want, Crusadar, is science to tell you God exists. But since you think like an atheist, you can only science to tell you God exists if you have gaps in the "natural" processes; that puts you up against both science and Christianity. The Christian doctrine of creation says there shouldn't be such gaps.

I require not science to show me the existence of God, for I trust in God totally since I do believe in everything that God says, remember?

You said in a previous post: "how do we know that there is a God who only stands outside and guides the evolutionary process? If that were the case, then the only way you would know that such a being truly exists is through what has been revealed in the Scriptures "

Do you see? You don't want a god that can't be detected by science and is known to exist "only" "through what has been revealed in the Scriptures". Why is knowing God exist thru 1) revelation in the scriptures and 2) your personal experience such a bad thing? Why do you have to show He exists thru science?

What you believe is everything you think that God says. That's not the same as what God says. Also, you admit that you ignore Creation. So you don't even listen to everything God says. You only listen to your interpretation of God's word. So, it is obvious that you are more interested in listening to yourself than listening to God. That explains a lot.

1. So what if the atheist believes in evolution but not in God?

It is a deciding factor, as it tells which side one is really on, God’s side or man’s. God’s word does not tell us anything of evolution so it is not God that you believe, but the other.

God's word doesn't tell us anything about sisters for Cain to marry, but you don't have a problem with that, do you? God's word tells us plainly that the whole world was taxed (Luke 2:1), but you don't have a problem with only part of the world being taxed, do you? God's word tells us plainly that the earth is immovable, but you know it does move, don't you?

If an atheist believes evolution happens without God, that's his problem. His personal problem. It is not a problem with evolution.

2. How can there by something wrong about atheist believing the same thing you do when you believe the same thing atheists do? As I say, you believe the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God.


It is wrong because they believe not in God and evolution justifies their belief. How can evolution serve to justify not believing in God, and in believieving in Him?

Now we come down to it!! Finally. Crusadar, evolution does not justify atheism. Many atheists think so, but why are you assuming they are right? What evolution did was remove the Argument from Design as a "proof" that God exists. You can't "prove" the existence of God that way anymore. However, even creationists recognize that evolution does not justify or demand atheism.

"The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a creator who works through natural selection." Phillip Johnson Reason in the Balance, pg. 73

However you need to address the question of how evolutionary “science” can lead men to a correct understanding of our origin and thus see the need for a Creator?

Why is that necessary? Why do you have to have science show the need for a Creator? You just said above: "I require not science to show me the existence of God" But now that is exactly what you want science to do. Crusadar, either you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing and don't care if you contradict yourself or you have not truly thought out your position and beliefs.

If it is possible then it would mean that fallible men using a man made (and therefore fallible) methodology with an incorrect postulate of atheism can arrive at the truth about God.

1. The methodology of science is no more, and actually less, fallible than the man made methodology of Biblical interpretation.

2. Darwin didn't start out with a postulate of atheism. Science doesn't start out with a postulate of atheism. Science is agnostic, not atheistic.

3. John Calvin recognized that atheists can indeed arrive at the truth about God.
"Calvin wrote "shall we say that the philosophers [scientists] were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature?" No, he emphatically concluded, because we cannot read these scientific writings "without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude ..." In the greate edifice of human arts and sciences, constructed in part by believers and in part by unbelievers, Calvin thought that we could see "some remaing traces of the image of God, which distinguished the entire human race from the other creatures." Roland Frye, Epilog, in Is God a Creationist? ed by Roland Frye, 1983, pg 203. References to Calvin are: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.15 and 2.2.17.

What can be more illogical than that by using a system of thought that contradicts one of the basic postulates of that system! In other words how can it be said that God used evolution, when the underlying premise behind evolution is that we are the result of natural processes therefore God holds no right to us nor was He responsible for creating anything therefore He is quite unnecessary.

There's your atheistic belief. Again. "natural processes therefore God ... nor was He responsible for creating anything" For that to be true you must believe that God is absent from 'natural processes'. Science never says that. Only atheists say that. So why do you keep repeating atheism as tho it is true.

So where does the idea of God fit in the evolutionary process as asked before?

Don't you ever read the answers?
1. None of the evolutionary processes work if God does not sustain them.
2. God can introduce mutations that He wants and it is not dectable by science.
3. God can engage in artificial selection that is not detectable by science.