Posted: Sep 22, 2017 3:24 pm
AFAIK, the only difference between ID and "theistic evolution" is the number of separate acts of creation involved. ID proposes separate acts of creation for each "kind" (leaving the meaning of "kind:" undefined), whereas theistic evolution proposes possibly only one act of creation, leaving it up to nature to generate all the separate species seen today. Thus theistic evolution is less absurd than ID, but still unnecessary.
No doubt, there are different versions of them, such that people can quibble aboutn the distinction, but, hey, who cares? None of it amounts to science anyway.
EDIT: I'm assuming here that "theistic evolution" corresponds to what I know as "guided evolution", in which the theists' god, and not natural selection does the guiding. Of course, if NS does the guiding, it corresponds to guiding by weight of populations, or, if you prefer, no guidance at all.
No doubt, there are different versions of them, such that people can quibble aboutn the distinction, but, hey, who cares? None of it amounts to science anyway.
EDIT: I'm assuming here that "theistic evolution" corresponds to what I know as "guided evolution", in which the theists' god, and not natural selection does the guiding. Of course, if NS does the guiding, it corresponds to guiding by weight of populations, or, if you prefer, no guidance at all.