This video introduction to intelligent design packs a lot of information into a very small video. (H/T Brian Auten from Apologetics 315)
When it comes to the science of DNA, theistic evolutionists and atheists agree: matter, law and chance are sufficient to evolve DNA. No intelligence is needed to sequence the base pairs or the amino acids. That agreement that intelligent causes are not needed to explain DNA is why I call theistic evolution “functional atheism”.
Theistic evolutionists express subjective opinions about God that no one can investigate using science. These untestable opinions about God are similar to the opinions of little children about Santa Claus. And yet they insist that they be taken seriously alongside the people who actually think Christianity is objective knowledge, not subjective opinion.
To defuse a theistic evolutionist, simply ask them for fully materialistic and naturalistic explanation for the first living organism – the origin of life. And then watch how they avoid answering the question. For even Richard Dawkins has no idea how life could begin, if only purely naturalistic, materialistic causes are allowed in the explanation.
Theistic evolutionists hate talking about evidence. They want to talk their private feelings and beliefs and experiences in order to reassure you that they are just like you. Don’t let them talk about religion – stick to what science can show. Demand evidence that the material processes can do the creating that the theistic evolutionists think that material processes can do.
Here’s an easy article that you can read that explains a bit more about what the video discussed. Here is one is a bit more difficult. These are mentoring articles for Christians.
If you want to read some serious research, then read this post and listen to this interview which are both about the work of Doug Axe.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Do you have sources for “theistic evolutionists” that you are referring to?
I ask, not because I am one, but because I know you’re wrong, at least in part. You paint with an absurdly large brush that makes you wildly inaccurate. :/
It’s unlike you.
LikeLike
Denis Lamoureux, Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, John Haught, Simon Conway Morris come to mind.
LikeLike
Wintry said, “When it comes to the science of DNA, theistic evolutionists and atheists agree: matter, law and chance are sufficient to evolve DNA. No intelligence is needed to sequence the base pairs or the amino acids. That agreement that intelligent causes are not needed to explain DNA is why I call theistic evolution “functional atheism”.
You may disagree with theistic evolutionists but be fair when you present the other side of an issue. The Evolutionary Creationists that I have read hold that the creation from the beginning was gifted with intelligence by God. An atheist would not say that.Right? Apologetically you give the atheist too much because evolution does not make sense in an atheist universe as philosopher Alvin Plantinga and others have demonstrated.
Could you produce a quote that demonstrates your assertion here? Please give the source as well.
What about this one? “Design is evident in the finely-tuned physical laws and initial conditions necessary for
the evolution of the cosmos through the Big Bang, and design is also apparent in the biological processes necessary for life to evolve, including humans with their incredibly complex brains.” Denis O. Lamoureux from his paper “Evolutionary Creation” which you can read at http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure evolutionary_creation.pdf
LikeLike
But their view is just an expression of personal preferences. When they look at the science of the origin of life, they are atheists and materialists. The God-talk is just… God-talk. A personal opinion is not science.
One the fine-tuning, point noted.
LikeLike
You are doing exactly what WLC said Ayala was doing in their debate which is confusing theology with science. I think WLC, in his debate with Dr. Ayala, was correct when he said that the debate over ID is not over evolution but over the mechanism of evolution. WLC also pointed out that many ID theorist are evolutionists. You continue to confuse ID theory and evolution when the primary debate is over mechanism (natural selection) and not evolution. Meyer, in the video above, does not think that front loaded design works scientifically which he may or may not have a valid point. YEC scientist Todd Wood even believes that the modern scientific evidence points to evolution but holds to YEC because of his literalistic interpretation of Genesis. His blog is http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/. His critique of “Reasons to Believe” is worth reading.It’s all very interesting. Thanks for allowing me to comment.
LikeLike