According to progressive creationism, God created the universe, life, and humanity, but he did it over a period of time billions of years long. As various species evolved from earlier species, God intervened periodically to give the process a helping hand. Without God's assistance, evolution would never have progressed as rapidly as it did on our planet.
Theistic evolutionism maintains that God only created the universe and simple life, not any complex form of life, including humanity. The idea is that after God created a very simple life form on our planet about three billion years ago, he departed the scene and allowed evolution by means of natural selection to take over.
Either way, it is GOD who is responsible for evolution and science does not tell this to us! Was Darwin wrong to neglect god's contribution to evolution?
I think it is a typo intended for "every last homie!"
Sorry, I guess I'm getting OP, or is that just my OP, wait, what?
... if you know what I mean.
A troll is favourite word to beat down an atheist who does not agree with you. It appears that you were already preparing for this. I am also of opinion that it is a question of etquette. If proper etiquerttes are observed at proper time, no controverses arise. Your discovery is also about the same.
Please see your anology of kissing a syster. Was this good etiquette? If you do not find my post good, you could have just left it alone. Was it necesssary to make such comments. I do not participate in many discussions if I do not find nthem to my liking. I think it is a bad etiquette to comment the way you have done. In addition to that you have gone to find something against me. This all loooks like a plan. If you want to callme a troll, prove that I am not an atheist. My experiance is that if I do not agree with someone I am called a troll. This is happening here too. So I am asking you to prove that I am not a true athiest.
Unfortunately, your posts lend themselves to accusations of troll like behaviour. Whilst this may seem unfair, you do yourself no favours by continuing to post provacative material and then refuse to answer legitimate concerns about the content of your post.
If you post an OP then you have a responsibility to answer critical responses to that OP. In this case because of the way you have posted the OP it is up to you to justify it's content and not indulge in pointless blather about who is or is not a troll.
So please go ahead and explain why you have decided to post the above in the manner you have chosen. I think you can avoid the obvious, that is because you want us to wake up, most of us have been awake to the nonsense promoted by creationists for years.
I am glad that you have asked a question without givin an indecent anology like giving a frnch kiss to a sister, as Marc Draco has done, so I will answer you in a decent language.
Jeremy, I must have seen more than a hundred discussuins on this site
and many with irrelevent subjects. I did not thgink much before posting this discusssion but I thought that this could be subject fo some discussin and I still think so. I can mention some headings of discussion that were actually frivolus, but there no point in creating ajnother controversy. Jeremy, I have found that many worthy subjects go begging for reply. Can those people who are un-necessarily criticising me now say confidently that they always make a good contribution to every good subject. Again if we do nit like a subject, and there are always such subjects, is it necessary to answer them and make indecent commments like goving a french kiss to a sister? And this very person teaches me goood etiquettes! Not only this, but goes on a search to find something against. What are we here?
In the end I will again add that I did not find this subject so bad as to raise this kind of unseemly quarrels. Hoewevr, thanks once again for your decency. I will always be decent to persons who are decent with me. Talking of giving a french kiss to a sister is the end of decency. I am greatly upset because of this.
If anyone does not like a particular discussion, he should go somewhere else.
Jason is right.
"This is just another example of religion backpedaling to science and modern social consensus in order to remain relevant."
As such, I do not agree that this topic is somehow unworthy of the forum or is "a bore". I might disagree with Madhukar that "theistic evolution" always takes on a Deist perspective the way he characterizes. Rather, the conclusions of science are ratified by establishment theists as being caused all along by a sort of gloss of theistic oversight, all to be taken as a matter of faith, of course.
Take this statement by Cardinal Ratzinger, who would soon become Pope Benedict XVI, from the International Theological Commission of the Vatican from 2004:
"In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe."
Note the sort of merging of the hard won conclusions of scientific method with the dubious intangibles of traditional church dogma. This is a process where the emperor is revealed to be devoid of clothes. In the rants here against the most extreme assertions and arguments on behalf of young earth creationism, there is not nearly enough attention granted on this forum to the "backpedaling" and false claims of compatibility between science and so many quarters of theism on our planet in the present time.