A page or so back, there was a bit of a discussion about defining the term evolution. It was agreed (at least it SEEMED to be agreed) that there is a bit of a range in definitions of this term. In the broadest sense, it means change over time. In the narrowest sense, it seems to refer to naturalism and abiogenesis.
SteveF seems to be using the broad sense of the word and is presenting a view of Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism.*
Jriccitelli, on the other hand, seems to be using the narrow definition of 'evolution'.SteveF wrote: ...God created nature in such a fashion that things would evolve the way they have.
Using JR's definition, "Theistic Evolution" and "Evolutionary Creationism" are oxymorons, and thus, dismissible. I can see, then, why he keeps working to prove there is a creator. It also explains why he might brush aside people like Glenn Morton as being mistaken. However, following this discussion is watching people talk past each other.jriccitelli wrote:The typical popular notion of 'Evolution' means there was no direction or input by a higher power (intellect), if there was a point in that stage where God intervened then that part was design by God, not evolution.
So...for the love of your lurkers, please decide which definition of the term evolution you are using. Perhaps things would be easier if you just stick with jriccitelli's use, and then spell out whole phrase 'change over time' when that's what you mean?
*Steve, is there a difference between these two terms? I confess I am very uninformed about these views.