More Creationist Definitions
David Heddle continues to discuss what a 'creationist' really is, responding to Theistic Evolutionist JM O'Donnell and Krauze at Telic Thoughts also makes a few good points about Mr O'Donnell's convenient equivocation on the term 'creationist' when he bashes creationists in this post on the immune system. (Amazingly, Mr O'Donnell doesn't understand the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position on things and so thinks the immune system is a problem?).

Mr O'Donnell takes little time in accusing David of creating a 'conspiracy theory' and so rather than starting off on rational discussion insteads tries to poison the well. His grasp of logic is also somewhat questionable by his inability to understand that allies cannot go around insulting and degrading each other. To Mr O'Donnell this is too much to grasp. All this is his first paragraph.

Ironically, Mr O'Donnell later goes on to say that the term 'Theistic Evolution' is

Calling it "theistic evolution" is IMO, simply a bait and switch to simply avoid the rather distastful association with creationists like AiG and Hovind.

thus he agree's with David's original point, that there is a reason for Panda's Thumb people to avoid calling him a creationist.

It gets even better though as Mr O'Donnell continues with this little gem

The key difference between theistic evolution compared to standard creationism is that I do not view signs of that creation are directly and empirically visible in nature.

He obviously doesn't believe in the God of the bible who says in Roman's 1:20 that God's "invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." So what sort of god does Mr O'Donnell believe in? A god whose creative actions can NEVER be seen in nature. Mr O'Donnell goes on to say that he even doesn't accept the fine-tuning of the universe. Clearly Mr O'Donnell's god is no different from mother nature as it seems the natural world is all he can see, with even the creation of the universe and all it's laws not counting as evidence of his gods actions. It seems he is not really a theistic evolution but even less than a deistic evolutionist. Perhaps we need a new category called a pantheistic evolutionist?

Mr O'Donnell goes on to say that he doesn't want his 'metaphysical beliefs taught in schools'. Obviously, he prefers that the materialistic metaphysical belief is taught in schools. Perhaps he feels that belief in God is not an important thing for our children to learn? What a strange position for someone who claims to believe in God. If God exists (as I believe he does), then surely the MOST important thing to teach our children is that he exists. Obviously Mr O'Donnell doesn't feel that belief in God is really that important.

I'm sure he has made some good points in his posts, but they seem to have gotten lost in the ad hominems and inconsistent statements.

All his beliefs really do provoke an interesting question however. If his god's actions are not directly or emprically visible in nature, then would he bother praying to his god? His god obviously can't change anything that would happen in the natural world (as this would be detectable, which would leave him simple in a mechanical universe which completely determines his fate.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Thursday, March 09, 2006