That's a classic example of begging the qwestion.
Creationism is bad theology.
This is not only begging the question, but the author proceeds to bait-and-switch:
The watchmaker God of intelligent-design creationism is delimited to being a garage tinkerer piecing together life out of available parts.
The "watchmaker" God is a deist notion. And creationism does not believe in "available parts" but that God created everything ex nihilo
Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature.
No it does not. The author is completely unaware of what the doctrine of Original Sin is.
Evolution explains family values.
So does creationism.
Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts.
And excludes others.
Evolution explains conservative free-market economics.
It also explains complete despotism as well. Evolutionism, unlike Christianity, does not inherently favor liberty - in fact, it undermines the concept.
Actually I don't think that the Bible anywhere explicitly says that God creates "out of nothing". Creationists often assert that the Hebrew term "bara" translated in Genesis as "create" only refers to creation ex nihilo, but I don't see how this can be correct since in the book of Amos it is said that God "creates (bara') the wind". And of course, apart from create/bara, there is much creationistic language that speaks of god "making" and "forming" things from preexisting material, and much that goes to his governance of nature.
Even if God sometimes creates ex nihilo, its clearly wrong to suggest that this is always characteristic of his actions as Creator.
Since it isn't a question that answers itself, it is NOT "begging the question." It is an introducing to the argument. Lesson: Learn your fallacies before citing them.
This is not only begging the question, but the author proceeds to bait-and-switch:
Again, the author is introducing his next argument. Lesson: Contextual comprehension is always a plus.
The "watchmaker" God is a deist notion. And creationism does not believe in "available parts" but that God created everything ex nihilo
Well, the Catholic Church believes in a "watchmaker" concept (as used in this context). Lesson: Don't make sweeping statements that can be punctured with one contrary example. But I will grant you the second part of your statement. Lesson: Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.
No it does not. The author is completely unaware of what the doctrine of Original Sin is.
The author might not know what Extreme Unction is, either. Original Sin is a concept to a few branches of Christianity and CERTAINLY not all. Lesson: Don't assume facts that are not facts at all.
So does creationism (explain Family Values).
So what? It doesn't change the argument on point. Lesson: Don't make arguments that don't help your position.
(Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts) And excludes others.
You cannot possibly state one moral precept that Evolution excludes. Lesson: Don't substitute pith for argumentation.
It also explains complete despotism as well. Evolutionism, unlike Christianity, does not inherently favor liberty - in fact, it undermines the concept.
This is flat out disingenuous. It is also unreasoned and unsupported. Lesson: Don't make bald and specious assertions on a board where people work with logic like car mechanics work with carburetors.
School's out for the day. I won't quiz you unless you make statements that show you didn't understand the lessons.