Replies

"You have not defined nor established that a logical fallacy exists with respect to Theistic Evolution."

Sure have. We still have the fallacy of the fallacy of affirming the consequent to 'support' evolution from observations. You have only replaced 'unknown processes' with a god.

Maybe you are confusing your refusal to admit the truth with some failure to present the truth to you. The truth has been presented to you. You simply refuse to admit it.

It's still the fallacy of affirming the consequent even though you try to put a god at the beginning of it. You are still saying that 'theistic evolution' (P) 'predicts' "change" (Q), "change" (Q) is observed; therefore (P) 'theistic evolution' is confirmed. Just because you put the word 'theistic' in front of evolution doesn't remove the fallacy.

"Aren't you a little embarrassed that in accusing other of logical fallacies you so quickly resort to the Argumentum ad Hominem type of logical fallacy?"

I made no criticism of you or the pope. I honestly asked if you can't admit that fallacy is the basis for evolution if the pope doesn't. That seemed to be your argument. You can't invoke the fallacy of argument from authority using the pope and then get offended if you are asked if you can't disagree w/ the pope. Well, you did but you should be embarrassed for doing so.

And aren't you a little embarrassed that you don't understand that the fallacy of affirming the consequent is invoked to 'support' evolution from observations?

That you don't understand that the information in biological systems is independent of the physics involved much like ink and paper and that you still believe that this information assembled itself from invisible laws of the very physics that you believe god created?

That this eliminates all objectivity and empiricism from the 'process' and that you are making an uninformed philosophical choice?

You aren't embarrassed by all of that?