[curiosity]

That said, it is my suspicion he will say from the church's point of view natural selection is in reality theistic selection. He will see God as not only the Creator, but as the Sustainer and active agent in nature.

I don't see how the above conflicts with the modern theory of evolution. God works through nature, so natural selection and theistic selection are in reality the same thing.

[GarySpFc]

I don't see how the above conflicts with the modern theory of evolution. God works through nature, so natural selection and theistic selection are in reality the same thing.

I am a Creationist, but I agree with you in that it does not conflict with the theory of evolution. However, the hard core materalists are going to object that it is not science because it is not testable. They are UNWILLING to admit even the possibility of God working in the evolutionary process. This is the issue in Kansas and the nation, which the so-called science community is unwilling to concede, and this is also the very thing which confirms they are hard core atheists.

[stremba]

True enough. Natural selection and "theistic" selection would produce exactly the same observable results. In science, however, Occam's Razor would apply to this and lead us to assume natural selection. That is, given two hypotheses that yield identical observable results, the assumption is to use the one that does not needlessly multiply entities. Since natural selection proposes that organisms survive according to how well they fit their environment, and "theistic" selection proposes that organisms survive according to how fit they are for their environment and that God plays a part in this determination, we assume natural selection. The theory of evolution can be said to be "atheistic" only for this reason. Anyone, evolutionist or creationist, who implies that evolution and theism are incompatible is simply unknowledgeable and/or is promoting an agenda.