[ifinnegan]

Wherein both of you seem to understand the idea that evolutionary theory does not hold aesthetic perfection or perfection in functional design as the goal, Jim, you’re spouting gibberish.

And both you, while presenting accurate reflection of theory — with freedumb being the more coherent, are arguing past these theological debaters.

Neither side represents the scientific view, as makes sense in a non-scientific debate

[freedumb2003]

>>Neither side represents the scientific view, as makes sense in a non-scientific debate<<

I am not quite sure of your point. Yes, TToE vs Creationism (vs. ID) is a purely philosophical discussion since science is only represented in the first “side.”

I just want lurkers to know many Conservatives do understand science and that YECers are (loud) outliers.

[JimSEA]

I was referencing the logical fallacies creationist use in supporting their positions. If I can characterize evolutionary theory as something it is not, construct a straw man, then I can prevail over it with ease. That is the technique used by every flood geologist, young earth creationist I've ever listened to. Evolutionary theory simply does not envision any normative perfection as the end result of evolution. Look up the creationist definition of transitional fossils and of micro vs macro evolution and you will discover two straw men. Sorry that I seem incoherent to you.