Theistic evolutionists not doing enough to defend our religion?

[mark kennedy]

TE like WLC in my opinion are spineless

Personally I think TEs are bold as lions, at least when arguing against creationism. I have no idea how they deal with atheistic materialists, never seen one who expressed a difference of opinion.

BTW, what is 'WLC'?

 

[Keachian]

BTW, what is 'WLC'?

I was thinking that as well, the only thing I can think of in relation to Christianity is the Westminster Leningrad Codex which is one of the two Hebrew texts which derives itself from L, the other being BHS/Q

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I think "WLC" stands for William Lane Craig.

 

[KhaosTheory]

WLC reminds me of a politician the way he dances around the evolution issue...

First he concedes that evolution doesn't contradict the Bible but then he goes off on the improbability of evolution...

I don't understand what is so improbable about it... The study he was referring to has already been completely debunked. Anyone with Google can find that out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

If anyone here agrees with WLC on the "improbability" of evolution can you please explain to me what is so improbable about how natural selection causes random mutations to be inherited by successive generations?

It seems fairly simple to me... Am I missing something?

 

[mysterysb]

I always feel TE is a compromised faith. In science, God (creation) is a faith, evolution is also a faith. Why would any Christian want to put two faith-dependent concepts into one? The consequence is that both faith will be weakened (e.g. 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25).

When I debate evolution, I definitely will leave God aside. It is simply funny that one would defend evolution by science but also drag God into the process.

One doesn't deny that Water is composed of 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule or that we have white blood cells and red blood cells that make up our body, or that velocity = distance/time. These are all scientific explanations of the things that God created. Science and God do not have to exist separately. Science is like the technical handbook.

I don't know if evolution happened the way that some theorize because I think there are wholes in it for sure. But I don't discredit it on the notion of biblical creation. I believe God created our earth as he described in Genesis although it likely was not literal. The words were created in a time when there may not have bene written language so it was an oral tradition passed down from the earliest days in poem form - until they could finally be written.

 

[Greg1234]

One doesn't deny that Water is composed of 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule or that we have white blood cells and red blood cells that make up our body, or that velocity = distance/time. These are all scientific explanations of the things that God created. Science and God do not have to exist separately. Science is like the technical handbook.

You simply gave the physical other names. The spirit is the life which impels and governs the physical.

 

[samaus12345]

WLC loses the debate to atheists before he gets of bed. Thats why atheists are happy to debate him (Dawkins, Hitchens, dead now though) His timeline of origin events is indistinguishable from theres, (Big bang, fish-->everything) with the exception he adds some pseudo-god in there who he claims guided it ahahahahah.

Atheists wont go near creationists in 'debates' because it would be a slaughterhouse. Dawkins knows this and has brainwashed his minions into believing its because it "Looks good on there CV, not so good on mine".