[CarolinaGuitarman]

"CG, for you to claim that evolution is THEISTIC, then the burden is on you to describe the nature of this God you envision and something about this God's methods and intentions."

Since I never actually said that evolution was theistic, your request is not my concern. What I said was that evolution does not rule out theism. Evolution is no more atheistic or theistic than relativity or historical geology is. None of these sciences has anything to say about the existence or nonexistence of a theistic God. No science does (or can). Most theists have reconciled their beliefs with what the evidence plainly shows to be true: The earth is very old, and life is related by common descent.

If the evidence counters someone's particular interpretation of God, so be it. The burden is on the theist to show how the evidence is wrong, or else to admit their interpretation was wrong. As for me, I don't give a rat's behind if the physical evidence goes against what you believe. That's your problem, not mine. You show where it is wrong instead of complaining about the implications to your worldview. Nobody really cares.

[xzins]

Not a helpful answer.

To claim that evolution is not atheistic, you must have some reason for claiming that it can be theistic. It only follows.

There is no allowance for neutral as an answer. In this particular case, neutral is simply repeating the claim that it can be one or the other, in which case, one should be able to describe the nature of the God that exist under this system.

Either one can address that description or one is simply repeating a statement that has been picked up.