Evidence for God from Science

I was just thinking about how, after so much time, it never ceases to amaze me as to how so many Christians remain ignorant of the assertions and beliefs inherent in Progressive Creation, and other related nuances of beliefs related to it. This post is not to argue the merits of the position, but to mostly to comment upon the lack of knowledge, of most people - Christian or not, and media - concerning Progressive Creationism (PC).

First, there is an astounding lack of knowledge about PC in the church. One would sometimes think that Christians think they ONLY have a choice to believe between a literalistic understanding of the Creation texts and 24-hour Creation days, and either evolution - as if evolution has anything to say about what came 11+ billion years before, that it would have been entirely dependent upon. Now, many Christians don't believe in the literalism of the time of those "days," but they are woefully ignorant of the assertions of Progressive Creationism.

The other thing that I see so much of is that so many Christians believe that Progressive Creationism somehow supports pure naturalism/unguided processes - evolution being the primary one - as to how life came to be. And, no doubt, various YECs have asserted that PC beliefs are anti-Scriptural - which we all SHOULD know are false.

But Christians (and others) also fail to understand that things DID evolve, yet they are ignorant of the differences between things evolving within locked, hard parameters, as to ONLY what changes are possible within a given species, and with macroevolution beliefs of simple cells (SOMEHOW coming alive WITHOUT a God) evolving to the multitude of species that now exist. And, of course, most Christians are totally ignorant of some Christians' beliefs that evolution was God's process of diversifying life, and of the various beliefs that entails. For instance, some Christians believe that the animals evolved, but that Adam and Eve did not come from them. Some do believe humanity IS a result of evolution, but that God changed the first two former "animals/hominids or whatever" into the first humans. Obviously many Christians believe that ALL life and humans are here via evolution - which, of course, has theological challenges.

And REALLY obscure, amongst Christians, is a lack of knowledge about the important differences and apparent contradictions that may well suggest that Genesis 2 is not merely picking up the story of the initial Creation and the animal kingdoms found in Genesis 1, but that it may be moving to a different setting (The Garden, which is only a PART of Eden, and of which Edens events are separate from all that is going on outside of it) and NEW human creations (Adam and Eve!). This difference between the two Creation accounts MIGHT mean that God created all other species FIRST, and subsequently man, but that Adam and Eve were created separately, and as God's/Christ's lineage for all Believers of all time. And that this separate and much later creation of Adam and Eve may have been far, FAR after the first men were already created. Of course, there are beliefs that differ about whether those preceding humans were created via evolution or PC. Point is, this belief that Genesis 1 and 2 may not be speaking to the very same things is almost totally unknown or discussed amongst Christians.

Lastly, there is the popular media - as they love to portray Christians as ignorant and superstitious - no matter their Creation beliefs. But popular media NEVER discusses the fact that millions of Christians don't hold to YEC literalism, that they are not ANTI-scientific, and that they accept the vast antiquity of the earth and universe - per the consensus of science. Of course, media types, like many others, ONLY discuss knowledge common to their peers - never truly researching or familiarizing themselves with other views. And, of course, the editors control the narrative. And editors typically print or publish views that the media owners desire them to. No one likes to go against the grain, per what they put out there.

Here's an overview of Progressive Creationism: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html

Philip wrote:I was just thinking about how, after so much time, it never ceases to amaze me as to how so many Christians remain ignorant of the assertions and beliefs inherent in Progressive Creation, and other related nuances of beliefs related to it. This post is not to argue the merits of the position, but to mostly to comment upon the lack of knowledge, of most people - Christian or not, and media - concerning Progressive Creationism (PC).

First, there is an astounding lack of knowledge about PC in the church. One would sometimes think that Christians think they ONLY have a choice to believe between a literalistic understanding of the Creation texts and 24-hour Creation days, and either evolution - as if evolution has anything to say about what came 11+ billion years before, that it would have been entirely dependent upon. Now, many Christians don't believe in the literalism of the time of those "days," but they are woefully ignorant of the assertions of Progressive Creationism.

The other thing that I see so much of is that so many Christians believe that Progressive Creationism somehow supports pure naturalism/unguided processes - evolution being the primary one - as to how life came to be. And, no doubt, various YECs have asserted that PC beliefs are anti-Scriptural - which we all SHOULD know are false.

But Christians (and others) also fail to understand that things DID evolve, yet they are ignorant of the differences between things evolving within a locked possible parameters, as to what changes are possible within a species, and with macroevolution beliefs of simple cells (SOMEHOW coming alive WITHOUT a God) evolving to the multitude of species that now exist. And, of course, most Christians are totally ignorant of some Christians' beliefs that evolution was God's process of diversifying life, and of the various beliefs that entails. For instance, some Christians believe that the animals evolved, but that Adam and Eve did not come from them. Some do believe humanity IS a result of evolution, but that God changed the first two former "animals/hominids or whatever" into the first humans. Obviously many Christians believe that ALL life and humans are here via evolution - which, of course, has theological challenges.

And REALLY obscure, amongst Christians, is a lack of knowledge about the important differences and apparent contradictions that may well suggest that Genesis 2 is not merely picking up the story of the initial Creation and the animal kingdoms found in Genesis 1, but that it may be moving to a different setting (The Garden, which is only a PART of Eden, and of which Edens events are separate from all that is going on outside of it) and NEW human creations (Adam and Eve!). This difference between the two Creation accounts MIGHT mean that God created all other species FIRST, and subsequently man, but that Adam and Eve were created separately, and as God's/Christ's lineage for all Believers of all time. And that this separate and much later creation of Adam and Eve may have been far, FAR after the first men were already created. Of course, there are beliefs that differ about whether those preceding humans were created via evolution or PC. Point is, this belief that Genesis 1 and 2 may not be speaking to the very same things is almost totally unknown or discussed amongst Christians.

Lastly, there is the popular media - as they love to portray Christians as ignorant and superstitious - no matter their Creation beliefs. But popular media NEVER discusses the fact that millions of Christians don't hold to YEC literalism, that they are not ANTI-scientific, and that they accept the vast antiquity of the earth and universe - per the consensus of science. Of course, media types, like many others, ONLY discuss knowledge common to their peers - never truly researching or familiarizing themselves with other views. And, of course, the editors control the narrative. And editors typically print or publish views that the media owners desire them to. No one likes to go against the grain, per what they put out there.

Do you feel that "PC" can legitimately based on scrpiture or science?

Do you feel that "PC" can legitimately based on scrpiture or science?

Both, Min! Also, I added an overview of Progressive Creationism to the end of my above post.

Funny thing, just this weekend I had a discussion with a guest at our Halloween party about this topic.
As an atheist it blew him away that I, a Christian, believed in evolution.
When I pointed out that the RCC has endorsed evolution since the evidence pointed to it, and that the RCC has over 1 billion followers, which means that the vast majority of Christians have no problem with evolution, he was blown away.

I thought that all Christians believed evolution to be wrong and that they all believe the world is 6000 years old.

PaulSacramento wrote:Funny thing, just this weekend I had a discussion with a guest at our Halloween party about this topic.
As an atheist it blew him away that I, a Christian, believed in evolution.
When I pointed out that the RCC has endorsed evolution since the evidence pointed to it, and that the RCC has over 1 billion followers, which means that the vast majority of Christians have no problem with evolution, he was blown away.

I thought that all Christians believed evolution to be wrong and that they all believe the world is 6000 years old.

1) you're a Christian, and you had a Halloween party?

2) Catholics aren't Christians.

3)

PaulSacramento wrote:Funny thing, just this weekend I had a discussion with a guest at our Halloween party about this topic.
As an atheist it blew him away that I, a Christian, believed in evolution.
When I pointed out that the RCC has endorsed evolution since the evidence pointed to it, and that the RCC has over 1 billion followers, which means that the vast majority of Christians have no problem with evolution, he was blown away.

I thought that all Christians believed evolution to be wrong and that they all believe the world is 6000 years old.

As I have found, there are a lots of educated Christians.
Fundamentalist beliefs are for the trailer park.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Funny thing, just this weekend I had a discussion with a guest at our Halloween party about this topic.
As an atheist it blew him away that I, a Christian, believed in evolution.
When I pointed out that the RCC has endorsed evolution since the evidence pointed to it, and that the RCC has over 1 billion followers, which means that the vast majority of Christians have no problem with evolution, he was blown away.

I thought that all Christians believed evolution to be wrong and that they all believe the world is 6000 years old.

1) you're a Christian, and you had a Halloween party?

2) Catholics aren't Christians.

3)

BWWAHAH !!!!!

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Funny thing, just this weekend I had a discussion with a guest at our Halloween party about this topic.
As an atheist it blew him away that I, a Christian, believed in evolution.
When I pointed out that the RCC has endorsed evolution since the evidence pointed to it, and that the RCC has over 1 billion followers, which means that the vast majority of Christians have no problem with evolution, he was blown away.

I thought that all Christians believed evolution to be wrong and that they all believe the world is 6000 years old.

1) you're a Christian, and you had a Halloween party?

2) Catholics aren't Christians.

3)

Or progressive.

Any people who reject the theory of evolution are seen as stupid people and are ignorant of science even if they have better theories based on science.It is sad so many people have been duped by evolution.Even when evolutionists admit evolution science does not do proof,they just believe it anyway.No evolutionist here has ever refuted anything I've said against evolution, and they cannot do it based on the evidence in evolution science,yet they still choose to believe it anyway.All they can do is imply I'm dumb,don't know enough to know,am ignorant,etc but they cannot refute me. It is easier to just insult rather than refute.Only the high priests of evolution - biologists can be trusted.

This is why evolutionists here refuse to get into the evidence for evolution,it is because it would prove me right and them wrong.Their faith in evolution is strong.It does not matter how much you believe life evolves the fact is there is no evidence in evolution science that even becomes close to demonstrating it does,yet they'll believe it anyway and then bring up no evidence for God,God creating man,etc.This is one reason why it is so important to me that evolution be destroyed and I see the church using the wrong weapons to do it.

Philip wrote:I was just thinking about how, after so much time, it never ceases to amaze me as to how so many Christians remain ignorant of the assertions and beliefs inherent in Progressive Creation, and other related nuances of beliefs related to it. This post is not to argue the merits of the position, but to mostly to comment upon the lack of knowledge, of most people - Christian or not, and media - concerning Progressive Creationism (PC).

First, there is an astounding lack of knowledge about PC in the church. One would sometimes think that Christians think they ONLY have a choice to believe between a literalistic understanding of the Creation texts and 24-hour Creation days, and either evolution - as if evolution has anything to say about what came 11+ billion years before, that it would have been entirely dependent upon. Now, many Christians don't believe in the literalism of the time of those "days," but they are woefully ignorant of the assertions of Progressive Creationism.

The other thing that I see so much of is that so many Christians believe that Progressive Creationism somehow supports pure naturalism/unguided processes - evolution being the primary one - as to how life came to be. And, no doubt, various YECs have asserted that PC beliefs are anti-Scriptural - which we all SHOULD know are false.

But Christians (and others) also fail to understand that things DID evolve, yet they are ignorant of the differences between things evolving within locked, hard parameters, as to ONLY what changes are possible within a given species, and with macroevolution beliefs of simple cells (SOMEHOW coming alive WITHOUT a God) evolving to the multitude of species that now exist. And, of course, most Christians are totally ignorant of some Christians' beliefs that evolution was God's process of diversifying life, and of the various beliefs that entails. For instance, some Christians believe that the animals evolved, but that Adam and Eve did not come from them. Some do believe humanity IS a result of evolution, but that God changed the first two former "animals/hominids or whatever" into the first humans. Obviously many Christians believe that ALL life and humans are here via evolution - which, of course, has theological challenges.

And REALLY obscure, amongst Christians, is a lack of knowledge about the important differences and apparent contradictions that may well suggest that Genesis 2 is not merely picking up the story of the initial Creation and the animal kingdoms found in Genesis 1, but that it may be moving to a different setting (The Garden, which is only a PART of Eden, and of which Edens events are separate from all that is going on outside of it) and NEW human creations (Adam and Eve!). This difference between the two Creation accounts MIGHT mean that God created all other species FIRST, and subsequently man, but that Adam and Eve were created separately, and as God's/Christ's lineage for all Believers of all time. And that this separate and much later creation of Adam and Eve may have been far, FAR after the first men were already created. Of course, there are beliefs that differ about whether those preceding humans were created via evolution or PC. Point is, this belief that Genesis 1 and 2 may not be speaking to the very same things is almost totally unknown or discussed amongst Christians.

Lastly, there is the popular media - as they love to portray Christians as ignorant and superstitious - no matter their Creation beliefs. But popular media NEVER discusses the fact that millions of Christians don't hold to YEC literalism, that they are not ANTI-scientific, and that they accept the vast antiquity of the earth and universe - per the consensus of science. Of course, media types, like many others, ONLY discuss knowledge common to their peers - never truly researching or familiarizing themselves with other views. And, of course, the editors control the narrative. And editors typically print or publish views that the media owners desire them to. No one likes to go against the grain, per what they put out there.

Here's an overview of Progressive Creationism: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html

Lets look at the choices- "secular" ToE; YEC, OEC, PC and Gap. Any others?

Yec and Gap are readily disproved; the ancient polar ice alone does that.

Why do you favor PC over OEC?

And what is the problem with God being entirely capable-and inclined-to
make a universe subtle enough that life can and does emerge and evolve, with no further prodding?

Nope ancient polar ice has dust in it that confirms a drought happened 4500 years ago that dates to Noah's flood,you may say what does a drought have to do with a flood? A drought happened after the flood. We have evidence of a world wide drought,this gets ignored and glacier ice melting becomes important. YEC's don't know this.The ice must have survived Noah's flood somehow because it has dust in it that confirms a drought.You should look into global warming science,now eventhough I don't believe man is to blame for global warming,science has detected a drought that happened 4500 years ago back to when Noah's flood happened. Coincidence?

I remember when I watched the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate and when the glacier ice was brought up to try to disprove Noah's flood I tried to yell through the TV to Ken Ham bring up the dust and he didn't.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:I was just thinking about how, after so much time, it never ceases to amaze me as to how so many Christians remain ignorant of the assertions and beliefs inherent in Progressive Creation, and other related nuances of beliefs related to it. This post is not to argue the merits of the position, but to mostly to comment upon the lack of knowledge, of most people - Christian or not, and media - concerning Progressive Creationism (PC).

First, there is an astounding lack of knowledge about PC in the church. One would sometimes think that Christians think they ONLY have a choice to believe between a literalistic understanding of the Creation texts and 24-hour Creation days, and either evolution - as if evolution has anything to say about what came 11+ billion years before, that it would have been entirely dependent upon. Now, many Christians don't believe in the literalism of the time of those "days," but they are woefully ignorant of the assertions of Progressive Creationism.

The other thing that I see so much of is that so many Christians believe that Progressive Creationism somehow supports pure naturalism/unguided processes - evolution being the primary one - as to how life came to be. And, no doubt, various YECs have asserted that PC beliefs are anti-Scriptural - which we all SHOULD know are false.

But Christians (and others) also fail to understand that things DID evolve, yet they are ignorant of the differences between things evolving within locked, hard parameters, as to ONLY what changes are possible within a given species, and with macroevolution beliefs of simple cells (SOMEHOW coming alive WITHOUT a God) evolving to the multitude of species that now exist. And, of course, most Christians are totally ignorant of some Christians' beliefs that evolution was God's process of diversifying life, and of the various beliefs that entails. For instance, some Christians believe that the animals evolved, but that Adam and Eve did not come from them. Some do believe humanity IS a result of evolution, but that God changed the first two former "animals/hominids or whatever" into the first humans. Obviously many Christians believe that ALL life and humans are here via evolution - which, of course, has theological challenges.

And REALLY obscure, amongst Christians, is a lack of knowledge about the important differences and apparent contradictions that may well suggest that Genesis 2 is not merely picking up the story of the initial Creation and the animal kingdoms found in Genesis 1, but that it may be moving to a different setting (The Garden, which is only a PART of Eden, and of which Edens events are separate from all that is going on outside of it) and NEW human creations (Adam and Eve!). This difference between the two Creation accounts MIGHT mean that God created all other species FIRST, and subsequently man, but that Adam and Eve were created separately, and as God's/Christ's lineage for all Believers of all time. And that this separate and much later creation of Adam and Eve may have been far, FAR after the first men were already created. Of course, there are beliefs that differ about whether those preceding humans were created via evolution or PC. Point is, this belief that Genesis 1 and 2 may not be speaking to the very same things is almost totally unknown or discussed amongst Christians.

Lastly, there is the popular media - as they love to portray Christians as ignorant and superstitious - no matter their Creation beliefs. But popular media NEVER discusses the fact that millions of Christians don't hold to YEC literalism, that they are not ANTI-scientific, and that they accept the vast antiquity of the earth and universe - per the consensus of science. Of course, media types, like many others, ONLY discuss knowledge common to their peers - never truly researching or familiarizing themselves with other views. And, of course, the editors control the narrative. And editors typically print or publish views that the media owners desire them to. No one likes to go against the grain, per what they put out there.

Here's an overview of Progressive Creationism: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html

Lets look at the choices- "secular" ToE; YEC, OEC, PC and Gap. Any others?

Yec and Gap are readily disproved; the ancient polar ice alone does that.

Why do you favor PC over OEC?

And what is the problem with God being entirely capable-and inclined-to
make a universe subtle enough that life can and does emerge and evolve, with no further prodding?

Audie,

PC(Progressive Creationism) is a kind of OEC(old earth creationism).

Audie: And what is the problem with God being entirely capable-and inclined-to
make a universe subtle enough that life can and does emerge and evolve, with no further prodding?

There is NO problem with whatever God might desire to do or as to how He accomplishes it. But for one that considers Scripture to be true, then the evolution explanation - at least as it would be applicable to Adam and Eve, is highly Scripturally problematic. If their story, particularly as to their creation and origin is true, then it conflicts with any any assertion that they were evolved beings connected to the animal kingdom. If the story is merely allegorical, it has absolutely no clarity as to what it might mean, other than what is clearly states. As well, Adam and Eve's story is foundational to the rest of Scripture and our need for a Savior. So, anyone believing that they were products of evolution must explain why the silly "Frankenstein"-like story. And if it doesn't mean what it clearly asserts, then what DOES it mean? Because it could be otherwise interpreted in many ways, none of them certain or meaningful. And why would God give us some strange tale of "dust and ribs," as opposed to explaining, if in simple terms, what their true origins and creation truly involved?

So, back to the question. God could have done things in any way He so desired to. So, the question, from a Christian point of view, has more to do with the truth of the story and its related theology - as to whether or not it can be reconciled with evolution - that is - evolution that would have included the origins of Adam and Eve. The Genesis accounts contradict that Adam and Eve evolved. So, that's a problem - UNLESS one views the story as merely allegorical - which, again, represents many important problems. Not the least of which is that their fall is the reason for a need we all need a savior - as we inherited their sin nature. Also, Adam is part of the lineages in Scripture AND others in Scripture refer to him as a real person. So, Adam and Eve HAD to have been real, and they could not have evolved - at least not PER the Genesis accounts. One might even assert that the animal kingdom evolved, but that Adam and Eve were special Creations (per the Scriptural accounts) - that would at least match up much better with evolution, if imperfectly so - and would also allow for a plain language understanding of the related events after Adam and Eve's creations. Also, everything of real importance - to US, today - has to do with all that Scripture reveals after Adam's creation: Of our nature, what God expects of us, etc.

Philip wrote:

Audie: And what is the problem with God being entirely capable-and inclined-to
make a universe subtle enough that life can and does emerge and evolve, with no further prodding?

There is NO problem with whatever God might desire to do or as to how He accomplishes it. But for one that considers Scripture to be true, then the evolution explanation - at least as it would be applicable to Adam and Eve, is highly Scripturally problematic. If their story, particularly as to their creation and origin is true, then it conflicts with any any assertion that they were evolved beings connected to the animal kingdom. If the story is merely allegorical, it has absolutely no clarity as to what it might mean, other than what is clearly states. As well, Adam and Eve's story is foundational to the rest of Scripture and our need for a Savior. So, anyone believing that they were products of evolution must explain why the silly "Frankenstein"-like story. And if it doesn't mean what it clearly asserts, then what DOES it mean? Because it could be otherwise interpreted in many ways, none of them certain or meaningful. And why would God give us some strange tale of "dust and ribs," as opposed to explaining, if in simple terms, what their true origins and creation truly involved?

So, back to the question. God could have done things in any way He so desired to. So, the question, from a Christian point of view, has more to do with the truth of the story and its related theology - as to whether or not it can be reconciled with evolution - that is - evolution that would have included the origins of Adam and Eve. The Genesis accounts contradict that Adam and Eve evolved. So, that's a problem - UNLESS one views the story as merely allegorical - which, again, represents many important problems. Not the least of which is that their fall is the reason for a need we all need a savior - as we inherited their sin nature. Also, Adam is part of the lineages in Scripture AND others in Scripture refer to him as a real person. So, Adam and Eve HAD to have been real, and they could not have evolved - at least not PER the Genesis accounts. One might even assert that the animal kingdom evolved, but that Adam and Eve were special Creations (per the Scriptural accounts) - that would at least match up much better with evolution, if imperfectly so - and would also allow for a plain language understanding of the related events after Adam and Eve's creations. Also, everything of real importance - to US, today - has to do with all that Scripture reveals after Adam's creation: Of our nature, what God expects of us, etc.

At the risk of being thought tiresome by krink for bringing up the flood..
What happens when you apply the above reasoning to that story?

I can, btw, agree that people are much flawed, ( tho this "sin nature" stuff is
just weird) and could use a savior or anyone else who'd like to improve us.

But why do "Adam and Eve" HAVE to be any more real than the flood? If there was not
really-really a talking snake thenJesus was a liar and all is but a bitter mockery?

Surely not.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:I was just thinking about how, after so much time, it never ceases to amaze me as to how so many Christians remain ignorant of the assertions and beliefs inherent in Progressive Creation, and other related nuances of beliefs related to it. This post is not to argue the merits of the position, but to mostly to comment upon the lack of knowledge, of most people - Christian or not, and media - concerning Progressive Creationism (PC).

First, there is an astounding lack of knowledge about PC in the church. One would sometimes think that Christians think they ONLY have a choice to believe between a literalistic understanding of the Creation texts and 24-hour Creation days, and either evolution - as if evolution has anything to say about what came 11+ billion years before, that it would have been entirely dependent upon. Now, many Christians don't believe in the literalism of the time of those "days," but they are woefully ignorant of the assertions of Progressive Creationism.

The other thing that I see so much of is that so many Christians believe that Progressive Creationism somehow supports pure naturalism/unguided processes - evolution being the primary one - as to how life came to be. And, no doubt, various YECs have asserted that PC beliefs are anti-Scriptural - which we all SHOULD know are false.

But Christians (and others) also fail to understand that things DID evolve, yet they are ignorant of the differences between things evolving within locked, hard parameters, as to ONLY what changes are possible within a given species, and with macroevolution beliefs of simple cells (SOMEHOW coming alive WITHOUT a God) evolving to the multitude of species that now exist. And, of course, most Christians are totally ignorant of some Christians' beliefs that evolution was God's process of diversifying life, and of the various beliefs that entails. For instance, some Christians believe that the animals evolved, but that Adam and Eve did not come from them. Some do believe humanity IS a result of evolution, but that God changed the first two former "animals/hominids or whatever" into the first humans. Obviously many Christians believe that ALL life and humans are here via evolution - which, of course, has theological challenges.

And REALLY obscure, amongst Christians, is a lack of knowledge about the important differences and apparent contradictions that may well suggest that Genesis 2 is not merely picking up the story of the initial Creation and the animal kingdoms found in Genesis 1, but that it may be moving to a different setting (The Garden, which is only a PART of Eden, and of which Edens events are separate from all that is going on outside of it) and NEW human creations (Adam and Eve!). This difference between the two Creation accounts MIGHT mean that God created all other species FIRST, and subsequently man, but that Adam and Eve were created separately, and as God's/Christ's lineage for all Believers of all time. And that this separate and much later creation of Adam and Eve may have been far, FAR after the first men were already created. Of course, there are beliefs that differ about whether those preceding humans were created via evolution or PC. Point is, this belief that Genesis 1 and 2 may not be speaking to the very same things is almost totally unknown or discussed amongst Christians.

Lastly, there is the popular media - as they love to portray Christians as ignorant and superstitious - no matter their Creation beliefs. But popular media NEVER discusses the fact that millions of Christians don't hold to YEC literalism, that they are not ANTI-scientific, and that they accept the vast antiquity of the earth and universe - per the consensus of science. Of course, media types, like many others, ONLY discuss knowledge common to their peers - never truly researching or familiarizing themselves with other views. And, of course, the editors control the narrative. And editors typically print or publish views that the media owners desire them to. No one likes to go against the grain, per what they put out there.

Here's an overview of Progressive Creationism: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html

Lets look at the choices- "secular" ToE; YEC, OEC, PC and Gap. Any others?

Yec and Gap are readily disproved; the ancient polar ice alone does that.

Why do you favor PC over OEC?

And what is the problem with God being entirely capable-and inclined-to
make a universe subtle enough that life can and does emerge and evolve, with no further prodding?

Audie,

PC(Progressive Creationism) is a kind of OEC(old earth creationism).

Well, look who did not put much thought into how she askrd a question.

"PC over some other iteration of OEC"