Replies

tomkat: "What I'm not is so cluelessly arrogant as to attempt to constrain God's methods and motives to fit some desperate human theistic construct."

papertyger: "That is EXACTLY what you are!
(It's really quite ironic that your hubris is so superbly specified by your own words.)
You don't even have the intellectual integrity to profess a materialistic atheism, and so by conceding to both sides you win the respect of neither."

Thanks tomkat for a great post.

Sorry papertyger, but now you've lost it -- starting out with a reasoned argument and a great word, "bulverism", you've descended into the pit of throwing cr*p against the wall in hopes some of it might stick.
tsk, tsk...

The fact is, much as you might wish otherwise, nobody here is arguing "materialistic atheism".
The accepted term is "theistic evolutionism" and that can be viewed as a sub-set of the larger scientific enterprise known as "methodological naturalism".
Methodological naturalism must not be confused with, or mistaken for, ideas which go variously by names like, "philosophical naturalism", "ontological naturalism" or "metaphysical naturalism".
All of those latter terms are fancy ways of saying "atheism", but that is not true of Methodological Naturalism.

Methodological Naturalism simply says: for purposes of natural-science we will only consider natural explanations for natural processes and everything else will be outside the realm of science.
Methodological Naturalism does not deny the existence of a non-material realm, but simply defines it as not-science.

tomkat to tomkat: "Your "reply" is nothing but a passive-aggressive attempt at appealing to some heretofore undiscovered quality of fenceposts, or turtles, dressed in an ill-fitting suit of "sanctimony.""

Obviously, you've overheated and blown a circuit or two.
Time to take a break, take a breath and take it a little easier.
Your accusations, regardless of how colorful, are all false and that should give you pause.
Does it?