What is your justification for arbitrarily redefining words? Your statement is absurd.
Back to begging the question of proof, it's a nice change from the ad hominems.
Now for the equivocation, science isn't synonymous with the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.
Correct. There was never an "a priori assumption of universal common descend." Common descent was a RESULT and CONCLUSION after examination of overwhelming quantities of evidence.
Methodological naturalism is how science works---and is part of the very definition of modern science as established by such God-affirming pioneers of science as Isaac Newton.
I have yet to see a Creationist that was opposed to Mendelian genetics for one simple reason, Creationism is not opposed to science or evolutionary biology in the proper sense of those terms.
I've never seen anyone claim that Creationists oppose ALL science. Indeed, even many of the scientific concepts which young earth creationist used to deny are now accepted by many of the leaders of the YEC movement in the U.S. You can even read lists of "Fellow creationists: Please don't use these arguments any more" on Ken Ham's AiG website.
Not once have I seen a theistic evolutionist willing to take a stand on the Scriptures.
Then you really need to open your eyes and get out more. If you've ever read my posts on ChristianForums, you've observed a TE taking strong stands on the scriptures.
Instead they want to demean and ostracize anyone who dares affirm the foundational doctrine of Creation.
Just as some pretend that "evolutionist" is a synonym for "evil atheist", you choose to redefine "theistic evolutionist" into some sort of cartoon caricature stereotype existing only in your imagination. SFS posted on this topic and how you have a long history of straw man fabrication. Why do you have such a virulent contempt for many of your own Christian brethren? ("Theistic evolutionist" describes a very broad spectrum of beliefs----including Jewish and Muslim TE as well as Christians. And even among Christian theistic evolutionists, they run the gamut from verbal plenary inspiration inerrantists to those you would consider theologically liberal. So why cherry-pick particular examples as if ALL TE's held such beliefs? Yes, we all know why you do that.)
Those nested hierarchies are zoological categories largely organized for convenience.
No. They are not mere convenient descriptions. They are REALITIES which God created in his biosphere. And he filled that creation with answers to our questions---but you choose to deny what God has clearly revealed to us. That is your right but don't pretend that any informed Christian is going to agree with you.
Genomics has demonstrated that the human genome is far more divergent then was predicted or could be expected.
Genomics has been a slam dunk for reaffirming yet again the reality of nested hierarchies. Those who lie and say that The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable ignore the fact that attempts at falsification take place daily, every time the evidence is examined. Genome mapping held the potential to debunk nested hierarchies (and The Theory of Evolution itself, theoretically) but instead it provided EVEN MORE confirmation! Need I review the countless examples where genome maps revealed EXACTLY what The Theory of Evolution had predicted long before?
Which leads me to a very serious question, if we are so much alike in our respective genomes why do so many evolutionists lie about the divergence between the Chimpanzee and Human genomes?
They don't. And they could just as easily ask why you lie? (What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.)
Nonsense.
Would you like for me to respond in kind?
God is not examined by science and God is not outside the parameters of science. God is altogether other which is called the asiety or utter independence of God. While God is separate from the created universe God's glory and divine revelation transcends the natural world.
I would be fascinated to hear an explanation of your self-contradicting statements of how God is NOT outside of the parameters of science and yet is transcendent and not examined by science. Which is it? It almost sounded like your agreed with Newton's methodological naturalism---but then you said you don't.
Upvote
0
