Do you know exactly to what in Pravoslavbob's most recent quote you referred?
In a sense it doesn't matter. I addressed 'evolution' all along as the theory of evolution as it is taught, which is wholly naturalistic. I also noted that if anyone wants to believe in God above and beyond that, then good on them
Do you know what he means by "the theory?" You probably shouldn't judge his response so flippantly until you know for certain what he's talking about. You yourself have stated earlier in this thread that you could allow for an evolutionary theory to include God as an active creative agent and that your objection is to evolutionary theory as it is taught today. How do you know for certain that Pravoslavbob is referring to the naturalistic evolutionary theory that you detest? Doesn't the quote I snipped from one of his posts earlier in this thread appear to imply the exact opposite, that he supports an evolutionary theory that you could actually, in theory, support?
The theory I might support has already been dismissed as non-science, it's ID-Theory.
The theory of evolution says that the process of speciation happened solely through naturalistic means.
ID-theory believes that the genocentric nature of neo-Darwinism can't account for jumps in species (outside of 'kind'). It does this because, for instance folds in RNA aren't governed by the genes (sort of like the way paper isn't determined by the writing upon it).
The mechanistic process in Darwin's idea is disputed by other theories of evolution. Lawrence Henderson wrote “Fitness of the Environment”
You can see a very large tract on it at http://www.members.iinet.net/~sejones/pe06envr.html
. The earth seems so suited for life, it can't have been by chance that life came about by chance. The inference is that there's an intelligence/blueprint behind it. This does not mean that the Christian God is proved by it, or God in any definition. BUT it is a form of evolutionary theory that tackles the problems of the holes in Darwin's mechanistic models.
Michael Denton agrees with when he states that the gene-centric theory of neo-Darwinism - is insufficient to explain all aspects of biology. He states “Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the '80s and '90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life's order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype... From being 'isolated directors' of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in “The Century of the Gene”
Michael John Denton ”An Anti-Darwin Intellectual Journey”, in Dembski, W. A. (ed) “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing”, p172.
He gives examples of the folds in RNA which happen consistently, and independently of genetic coding... but these rules governing the folds... “These laws of protein form are strictly equivalent to the rules that govern the way atoms are combined into molecules or subatomic particles are combined into atoms to generate the periodic table of elements...
The folds present stunning evidence, perhaps the first clear evidence discovered in biology, that highly complex organic forms can be generated by natural law. With the folds, the impossible has become possible - the basic building blocks of nature are specified in abstract laws of form and are not simply a mechanical program in the genes. They are lawful, emergent, self-organising forms and not contingent 'cleverly contrived machines'. Here is a set of forms that arise directly out of the basic properties of matter, confirming the inference I had previously drawn from reading Henderson, that life might be encoded in the basic properties of matter.”