More theistic evolution, sorta

I would say that the conversation "continues" over at the blog of The Creation of an Evolutionist, but the author of the blog, Mike Beidler, did not really engage me.

Here's my response to him:

Mr. Beidler,

Yes, I most certainly understand your lack of lots of spare time. Don't worry about it. I myself plan to be overseas, doing mission work, in the near future and can't imagine blogging much if at all after making the move. I was referring mostly to the other commenters who had time to give you misplaced accolades w/o interacting with my critique.


AMW is quite correct when he criticizes the tone with which you present your arguments and disagreements.

Then I'd like to ask you the same question I asked him/her about the moral objectionability of addressing someone in a disrespectful tone.


(Your blog post "Theistic evolution really is dumb" being a case in point.)

Sorry you didn't like it, but I'm glad you read it. I'm more sorry you chose not to interact with most of my critique.


I was quite surprised to find that you're a former overseas missionary and love foreign cultures.

Well, I'm the kind of former (and future, God willing) missionary who takes the Word of God seriously and holds in contempt those who think they know better than God.


I would think that experience would open your eyes to different ways of thinking,

You know what they say - open your mind too much and your brains fall out. My mind is quite open enough to examine other points of view, and then reject them based on where they're wrong. If they're wrong. And the liberal "I accept the parts of the Bible I like and which my REAL authorities - modern scientists - don't contradict with their nearly-infallible studies" position is particularly bad - you attack the integrity of God's revelation to the church from within the church.


your cultural experiences are irrelevant to understanding Scripture.

Actually, my cultural experiences are what have driven me to love the Bible that much more and to hold in high priority its truth and finality. (I mean, since you're asking about me, rather than interacting with my critique.)


You really should take the time to better understand the cultures which produced the Bible

Sir, with all due respect, you know nothing about me, and you have made no logical connection between my better understanding the "cultures that produced the Bible" and my critique. Interestingly, this does reveal quite a bit about your position. You think the Bible is more or less only a manmade document. I think the only rational and coherent worldview possible is to take the Bible as the true and infallible revelation of an infinite and Almighty God. That's a big difference between us, and it enables me to understand how inconsistent you are in for some reason subjecting SOME of your sensibilities and morés to the Bible. Just not the parts that it might be embarrassing to have to defend before unbelievers, apparently.


I know you'll be disappointed when I tell you that I'm not going to respond to most of your challenges.

Yes, but not surprised. I've spoken to many liberals.

And by my inability to answer an impossible challenge, you see it as validation of your own theory, i.e., ex nihilo of every fossilized species in the geologic column.

Again with all due respect, you don't know what my position is, since I haven't told you. Do you consider it polite or proper debate etiquette to assume the other guy's position?
And yes, I do happen to think my challenge is impossible to answer, b/c I've pointed out the many assumptions that you could never hope to justify. Much better and much more rational that you ask the One Who was there and Who made it all happen, and go with what He said.


It's obvious to me that you really don't know what you're talking about

Where's the Tone Police when you really need them?


Why don't you tell me how accepting biological evolution makes me a functional atheist

With respect to THIS QUESTION? Where did God act? And how do you know?


So, because something is "well-meaning" means it's correct?

No, and I have trouble seeing why you think that question is relevant.


As for Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, I really can't reflect on how utterly ridiculous their latest books are.

Right, b/c you're apparently much more concerned about the evil and horrid effects that Focus on the Family projects will have on society...


BTW, you're rewriting of Romans 5:12 is pretty darn close to what I believe.

That, sir, is a shame. May the Lord be pleased to bring you to repentance.

Peace,
Rhology