marc9000 writes:A hands off designer? It doesn’t make logical sense.
That's a strange thing to say. Are you rejecting the idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient?
marc9000 writes:And in defending it, all he’s focused on is the evolution, he doesn’t seem to listen to the views from the religious standpoint.
I'm sure he listens. He obviously doesn't agree with the views of some Christians.
marc9000 writes:That’s understandable if he thinks that science is the only, or main, source of knowledge — that it’s in first place, and religion has to fall in line behind it. I’ll c/p part of what was c/p’d from the book in message #16 of this thread;
I'm sure that Miller understands that science is fallible. All scientists understand that.
It's not science that is in first place. But the way the world is, has to be given high place. For that is the direct creation of God. The biblical text is secondary, for that involves the hand of fallible man.
marc9000 writes:Miller obviously puts human reason above anything in Christianity.
The text you quoted does not show that. It only shows that Miller puts reason and evidence above the claims of Henry Morris.
marc9000 writes:His secular convictions
that allow Christianity to be bent beyond recognition are also unjustified and dangerous to many in the general public who provide tax money to publicly fund scientific research.
It seems to me that it is Henry Morris and other founders of 20th century creationism, who have bent Christianity beyond recognition.
marc9000 writes:Most creationists don’t deny all evolution, they’re fine with the micro parts, the build up of immunity to diseases, the changes within kinds, the parts of evolution which are proven.
Yet that part is already sufficient to account for all of biological diversity.
marc9000 writes:Claims that the book of Genesis is an allegory, that there was no fully formed first man, that there was no original sin by one man, later redeemed by one man.
The physics in Genesis 1 is badly wrong. Why can you make excuses for Genesis, and read it as symbolic? But you apparently won't do that for Genesis 2, 3.
I guess it is all the "original sin" issue. Yet the doctrine of original sin is mostly made up theology with very little real biblical support. It is
not universally accepted as a required part of Christian belief.
marc9000 writes:Why aren’t atheists furious at that claim?
Why would they be furious. The question of origins has not been settled by science, so there is room for a diversity of views. Moreover, most atheists are not anti-theist, they just don't adopt a theistic view for themselves.