[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.

[curiosity]

However, the hard core materalists are going to object that it is not science because it is not testable.

They would be right, actually. Theistic evolution is not science, but so what? There's more to life than science, and not all truth is scientific.

Hard core materialism isn't science either, so we have a good comeback.

Theistic evolution should be taught in science class, and neither should philosophical materialism.

They are UNWILLING to admit even the possibility of God working in the evolutionary process.

First of all, I think most evolutionary biologists are willing to admit this possibility. Stephen J. Gould certainly was. So is Kenneth Miller, a faithful Catholic and the author of the biology textbook upon which the Kansas schoolboard decided to place the "thoery not a fact" stickers.

At any rate, the denial of God's role in the evolutionary process is just as unscientific as the affirmatinon. of the proposition

[curiosity]

Woops, typo. Meant to say, theistic evolution should NOT be taught in science class, but neither should philosophical materialism.

[balrog666]

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.

That's almost too stupid a statement to be in print.

But I wonder if you see a difference between your statement and this one:

They are UNWILLING to admit even the possibility of Jagadhamba working in the evolutionary process.

Or this one:

They are UNWILLING to admit even the possibility of Invisible Pink Unicorns working in the evolutionary process.

[Dimensio]

However, the hard core materalists are going to object that it is not science because it is not testable.

Actually, the bigger problem is that it invokes the supernatural. Science cannot address the supernatural, and so any statements that make reference to the supernatural are inherently unscientific.

And then we get people whining because they don't like the fundamental definition of science, and it's just not fair that science won't address non-natural, non-testable claims.