"The Berea-Portal gang ..... don't like you, because you because you make them feel uncomfortable about the compromise of Evolutionary Creationism."
I wonder what he meant by that?
I expect that he meant that they compromised their Creationism by including Evolutionism.
But I see it as a different sort of compromise. The Berea-Portal team and their readers appear to believe 99% of what we Unbelievers believe. They believe in the Big Bang, the inflation and then expansion of the Universe, the gravitational aggregation of matter to form stars and galaxies, the build up of the heavier elements through nuclear fission within stars and subsequent supernovae explosions, the Abiogenesis of life here on Earth and the flourishing of Evolutionary change to build all of the different life forms that we now observe.
They believe all that modern science has taught us and they are to be commended for accepting the obvious reality of it all.
But then they throw in the fatal compromise. They leave empirical evidence based reasoning behind in their wake and allow superstitious thinking to colour their conclusions. They think that somehow God created and ordained the natural processes behind the formation of the Universe and life.
Science would answer that there is zero evidence for this. The 'fine tuning of the Universe' is dismissed by Cosmologists like Lawrence Krauss as not 'fine tuned' at all. There were better ways to tune our Universe. We happen to live in a finely tuned universe because if it were not tuned to our liking, we would not exist. That in itself is sufficient to explain why it is tuned the way that it is. We don't have to worry about why it is tuned; although one day Science will discover the reason.
At no point; from prior to the Big bang until now do we need God to do anything at all to get us to where we are. Theoretical Physicists can explain to us every step of the way and the concept of God is superfluous to their reasoning and calculations.
Only the fear of death provoking a superstitious reaction in humans to invent God and hypothesize eternal life for worshippers could ever cause a rational person to make the ridiculous compromise of adding a spoonful of 'God' to the explanation of why we are here and where we are headed.
One way or another, Evolutionary Creationism is a compromise. It is either superstitious belief with Evolution thrown in; or Evolution with superstitious belief thrown in.
Either way it is a cop-out to explain why the Bible is disproved by the known facts of science and by modern human knowledge of these things. It is an obvious 'fudge' to attempt to get out of an impossible situation. But I don't need to tell you that 'fudging' an issue is never the way to solve it correctly. Because you end up with a theory that is neither one thing or the other.
- It's a compromise.