geocreationism.com

As discussed, here is a reminder of my ground rules: “Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Ground Rules for the Review
Because I believe DeRosa’s opening paragraphs exclude discussion of any viable form of Theistic Evolution…

I will weigh DeRosa’s anti-Evolution arguments as they pertain to Darwinian Evolution, separately from a (for lack of a better term) Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I will be weighing DeRosa’s pro-Creationist arguments as they pertain to Creationist theories in general, and specifically Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I am knowingly excluding all other specific Creationist and Evolutionary theories, though I realize there are other theories that are worthy of discussion.

DeRosa begins this chapter with a summary of the …

As discussed, here is a reminder of my ground rules: “Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Ground Rules for the Review
Because I believe DeRosa’s opening paragraphs exclude discussion of any viable form of Theistic Evolution…

I will weigh DeRosa’s anti-Evolution arguments as they pertain to Darwinian Evolution, separately from a (for lack of a better term) Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I will be weighing DeRosa’s pro-Creationist arguments as they pertain to Creationist theories in general, and specifically Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I am knowingly excluding all other specific Creationist and Evolutionary theories, though I realize there are other theories that are worthy of discussion.

“Why does the Same Evidence Lead to Opposite Conclusions?”

DeRosa’s …

From the first page of Chapter 1, I can see that I might end up repeating myself if I do not set some ground rules for how I review this book.  Consider the second paragraph (emphasis added):
In the origins debate, the evidence leads to one of two conclusions: evolution or creation.  These two basic views are completely at odds and admit no middle ground.  On the one hand, evolution relies on pure random chance as the agent by which matter and energy, over time, are assembled into living systems with all their mind-boggling complexity.  The evolutionary process, we are told, requires billions and billions of years.  Creation, by contrast, relies on the “mechanism” of an outside intelligence which we define …

I received as a Christmas present the book “Evidence for Creation - Intelligent Answers for Open Minds”, by Tom DeRosa.  The gift was from my Pastor who knows that I believe in an Old Earth.  In fact, he let me teach the Creation unit of a multi-week course a few years ago, because I expressed concern that the teaching might alienate people who believe the earth is old.  So, he let me teach it.  For my closing, I said something like the following:
“Now, some of you may be wondering what I believe about Creation.  I am not going to say, though I am sure no one here will guess.  The reason I won’t say is because God’s love for us is …

Just a quick question.

If the earth were capable of passively producing complex life forms, with no involvement from God, then why isn’t that evidence for Intelligent Design?

Just wondering.