The answer is: I'd never say it the way you've expressed, but that basic idea -- does evolution theory beautifully explain the natural descent and diversity of life on earth? -- yes, I agree with that, but I don't think there was anything random or even arbitrary about it, because I believe everything in the Universe unfolds according to God's original intention, design, plan and subsequent execution.I think you ascribe to intelligent design. I would proscribe assent rather than descent, but that is a small issue.
I have not come yet to the point of theistic evolution, though it might seem logical to many and I learn with each conversation about what people believe. It makes things interesting.
Mine was not a trick question for you but a question to find out where you stood on the issue of darwinism, physicalism, and naturalism (both methodological and metaphysical). I believe you ascribe to metaphysical naturalism, notwithstanding your previous posts, but believe that the magesterium of science can only deal with methodological naturalism or strict physicalism. No need for you or I to replow that ground.
Your answer to my question, if NO, would have agreed with your statement that it is a theistic universe, but that God ordered the evolution. If YES to my question, I would have simply asked you to epistemically justify your belief, and thus, my question about truth and knowledge. I don't think I meant to trick you at all but to elicit a clarification for own understanding of what your position was.
As for me I spent 35 years making my living in what many might consider science as a general/trauma surgeon. My masters degree was in Biology with a dissertation/thesis of "Identification of a Thanatocenose Assemblage of Pleistocene Vertebrate Fossils from McFaddin Beach, Texas. And I hold BS's in Biology and Chemistry. After all of these years I have come to reject Darwinism, and Young Earth theology. I have been at the steps of this being a Theistic Universe these years but have always read and tried to keep up with the arguments on both sides.
I meant you no disrespect or consternation with my comments. Perhaps we can talk about it again. ,
No, I have now several times correctly summarized metaphysical naturalism as: religious atheism.
I am not atheist, I believe what they teach in church, which is that God created & directs all such physical processes as, for example, evolution.
That distinction between metaphysical and methodological naturalism is important -- because it means that believers can be scientists without discarding their beliefs.
It's just that in terms of their scientific work, they must seek natural explanations for natural processes.
Texas Songwriter: "After all of these years I have come to reject Darwinism, and Young Earth theology.
I have been at the steps of this being a Theistic Universe these years but have always read and tried to keep up with the arguments on both sides."
Your CV suggests that you should well understand definitions of words like "evolution" and "Darwinism", but your posts strongly suggest you don't.
How can that be?
Basic evolution theory, which is all that Darwin proposed, consists of two simple and factual processes: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Neither of these facts are even debatable, and Darwin's theory simply says that if continued over very long time periods they can result in separated populations growing distinct enough to be classified as new species.
Of course, all speculations beyond basic theory are highly debatable, especially various hypotheses relating to abiogenesis or panspermia of life on Earth.
But none of these can be called "Darwinian" or even, necessarily "evolution".
Basic evolution itself begins once we have some life capable of evolving.
How precisely life got to that point is not yet known.
As far as God's Hand in all this, God is not a matter for scientific inquiry, but rather of religious belief or philosophical assumption.
In classical philosophy of Aristotle or Aquinas, God is considered the necessary First Cause.
In modern psychology, I would say, God represents the necessary devotion without which nothing human is truly human... give that some thought, if necessary.
And consider, Aquinas had much to say philosophically about God, none of it contradicted his religion, and all lead back to it...