"if some god did create via aeons of evolution,it would reflect badly on said god.
i was listening to a discussion yesterday between an atheist and a theistic evolutionist who IMO did not do so well precisely because he already was conceding too much ground.i would love to see a debate by the likes of dawkins against a qualified creationist scientist like ,for eg johnathan sarfati.of course dawkins refuses - supposedly not to give creationism respectability.on the other hand if he did accept the challenge he could demonstrate what nonsense it is - could,nt he?.well i have no worries about any such fair contest demonstating which position is weak."

I agree with JtS that pete of the stars's latest post is fairly incomprehensible. Are you seriously saying, Pete, that God could not/would not/did not use evolution in his creation, that it "would reflect badly on him if he did"? Are you truly proposing that Dawkins's position would be "weak" if he were to debate with a "qualified creationist scientist"? Don't you realize that there is no such thing as 'creationism science', that there cannot be?

I have no problem with believing things through faith; to my mind we utilize faith in a thousand unnamed ways. But don't call it "science", for pity's sake.