Hoenstly I'm not sure where that number came from right now. I used it in another argument based upon some report. Ah well your numbers are probably more correct. lol

I think that mine might be regular church goers. About 40% of the total number which sounds about right.

Theistic evolution is non-falsifiable nonsense. The theists are hedging their bets and taking credit for anything science discovers. They have no answers but will ride the coattails of science and declare that 'god did it'. I take that less seriously than Young Earth Creationism. At least the latter is an argument.

See what I mean? Naturalism. It isn't supposed to be an argument. It's merely seeing that Evolution isn't any form attack on Christian beliefs.

But that's just absurd. Christianity says men were created by God separately from animals. Common descent is a direct contradiction of your beliefs.

If theistic evolution is not an argument, it's not a belief. It's just a nonsense statement that has no meaning. It's like saying there are square circles.

Theistic evolution just believes that evolution is how God created life and, implicitly, accepts the rest of the scientific data on the universe as an expression of how God created everything. Far from nonsense, it merely augments what science shows with a belief that, through science, we see how God made everything. You can reject that as an atheist, but it's just a philosophical take on what the accepted data is, not an attempt to justify religion using science or science-like babble. People who oppose theistic evolution from a skeptical point of view are really just hostile to the idea of God (a legitimate position to hold, philosophically) rather than hostile to the idea as such. I mean, what's really to complain about?

I already said, it's non-falsifiable. Simply proclaiming there's an unseen hand behind the multi-billion year process of evolution via natural selection is just a cop-out. It's intellectually cowardly because no matter what happens and how many Christian dogmas are contradicted they'll continue to ride the coattails of science while insisting on this unseen, unexperienced hand. It doesn't augment anything. It's just a way to have your cake and eat it too, to call both heads & tails in a coin toss. It doesn't add a single thing to anybody's explanation of anything because it is a completely unaccountable statement.

No, it's a perfectly reasonable position. Judeo-Christian religion has always posited that God is a rational being, and that the universe He created is comprehensible to rational minds. Science assumes we can discover the rational laws upon which the universe is based, and that those laws will be consistent. Science wouldn't exist without this basis--it is science that is riding the coattails, of premises established by the Christian tradition. So, assuming that God uses evolution or other processes that we can discern through rational observation and deduction, is following a long tradition of Christian thought.

Non-falsifiablility is irrelevant since it isn't a scientific claim. It's a method of understanding religion in the world. Noah's Ark becomes a story with a moral of redemption rather than task in explaining why all the marsupials went to Australia. Adam and Eve are likewise an allegory for man disobeying God and the consequences that brings, rather than an exercise in avoiding the incest question. This way of thinking lets religion focus on what's actually important, namely how to live a moral life. Ultimate origin really isn't that important to the crux of Christianity, it just looks that wya from the outside since yahoos make so much noise about the Flood creating the Grand Canyon and such nonsense.

A monk once gave the homily at my church. He said "Everything in the Bible is true, and some of it really happened." That's the right way to look at it all.

No, Christianity is explicitly anti-rational "And my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God". As Celsus said, the Christians laid down rules which said that, "Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence."

And no, Christianity is not a moral system whatsoever. Morality or living one's life in this world is quite irrelevant. So long as you "believe" you are absolved of all wrong doing in this life. It's a salvation system. The NT spends far more time talking about the importance of belief than in promoting a moral code of any significance.

"Science assumes we can discover the rational laws upon which the universe is based, and that those laws will be consistent."

There is nothing 'rational', nor 'consistent', Christians claim regarding laws governing anything, considering Mosaic law was overthrown by Jesus.

"it isn't a scientific claim. "

Is it a claim about the physical world or isn't it?

No it's a stance that basically says "Oh the world's older than everybody thought and animals can change over time? Okay I don't see that as a threat to God or Christianity."

Your first quote basically says “I’m not going to talk you into being a Christian, you’ll see the glory of God through my actions”. There is nothing anti-intellectual about that it just says that actions are more important than words.

I love the Celsus quote. Celsus was the Dawkins of his day. He was a Greek philosopher who dedicated much of his life to arguing against Christianity

The importance of faith is undeniable, but the importace of living an upright and moral life, "Let your light so shine before all men that they shall see your good works and glorify your Father in Heaven", is just as important.

Thomas Jefferson, no fan of religion, after cutting away every miracle still called Christ's teachings "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."

But yeah I think that the orginal statement was more of a jab at Obamacare, but without the original script we can't really be sure.