[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[lordkalvan]

L.K
Why would a 'non-Darwinist' necessarily interpret it differently from a 'Darwinist'? Are you suggesting that only two interpretations are possible: 'non-Darwinist' or 'Darwinist'?

Again -- "interesting" logic... instructive for the unbiased objective reader.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate your meaning? Why do you place quotation marks around interesting? How is the 'logic... instructive for the unbiased reader'? What are you seeking to convey? You could even try answering the questions I asked rather than being cryptic, or are you in fact agreeing with me?

 

[BobRyan]

Well you say "Darwinist" and "non-Darwinist" should not be thought of as the only two possibilities -- but you never identify a third one. Given that someone either IS a believer in Darwin or they "believe something else" by definition -- your argument lacks a compelling point.

I find that instructive because it indicates that you are closing in on what I call the "deny-all" solution such that now you deny that someone either believes in darwinism -- or "something else" (i.e. not Darwinism). That is getting to a "deny-all" model that I have seen before with Darwinists.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

By my argument there is no gap. The days of creation are not required to be literal days

Bob said
Interesting "SIX Days You SHALL labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" ...

You argue that we should insert whatever darwinism "needs" to find a way to make that text "work for Darwinism"??


... in your "God did NOT created in Six days" reduced to "God did NOT create at all" redefinition of the text -- the question still remains for our atheists and agnostics -- IS THIS language (as we SEE it above in Exodus 20:8-11) the way to say in english "GOD did not Create, God did not even remotely DESIGN" --

L.K
Your reduction, not mine. 'God did not create in six actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today' is not the same as saying 'God did not create at all;'

Actually it is because you argue that NOT ONLy did He NOT do what the clear simple text quoted above says - you ALSO ARGUE that he did not even DESIGN such that anything at all could be objectively SEEN or DETECTED as "designed" as something other than "what rocks can do if given enough time".

That is an "extreme departure" from the simple point "SIX days YOU shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE...and ALL that is in them" -- and so "we see" your solution is to avoid the text you so clearly had hoped to spin around to say "In Six days you shall labor... but that does not mean that in Six days God made anything at all or at least not so-s you would notice by looking at it".

This is the part that is glaringly obvious to the objective unbiased reader.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

....if as you argue -- these words are really a very hard-to-understand veiled way of saying "Darwinism is the way it happened" then just how "reliable" is this supposed form of "Darwinism" anyway?

L.K
If you are interpreting my argument as saying this, then I have failed to make my argument clear. I have no opinion of the text in question as addressing the question of ToE at all, quite the contrary.

If it were true that this text says NOTHING about how all life on earth came to be -- OR if it were true that Darwinism DOES NOT address the subject of the origin-path-explanation for how all life on earth came to be, you would have a point.

But insisting that one or the other of those ideas is true - easy enough to test and we have a group here that "could read" the simple text and SEE if it really does reference "ALL THAT IS IN THEM" or not.

It is not as confusing for the reader as you seem to have hoped - and Darwinists like Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers, Huxley all admit to seeing the point of "That gap" - just as do Bible believing Christians such as myself.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Interesting "SIX Days You SHALL labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" ...

You labour this point as if it is incontrovertible that the days of the Jewish week are an absolute chronological reflection of the days of creation week. In the first place, this relationship is not incontrovertible,

Wonderful -- all you have to do is exegete that text above and SHOW that THE TEXT is "redefining the term for DAY" mid-sentence OR SHOW that the text is NOT a summarization of the Genesis 1:2-4 event that it CLAIMS to summarize OR SHOW that in that text a "day" is "7 indefinite periods of time".

And when we get to the point of seeing your exegesis of Gen 1-2:4 all you have to do is SHOW that "evening and morning were the Sixth day" was ever a way Moses (or any other bible writer) used to "describe an indefinite period of time".

Basically your "assumption" requires that you "do the impossible" to sustain it.

Otherwise we have you "merely assuming the salient point of your argument rather than demonstrating it to be valid" to quote Johnson.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting "SIX Days You SHALL labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" ...

L.K
Are you suggesting that Moses' hypothetical readers' interpretation of OT text carries greater weight than the interpretations of later scholars whose work and opinions we can actually reference? Do you think that anyone knows what interpretation Moses placed on the text?

[/quote]

Hint: that is WHY we have the method of Exegesis. You can not simply "flee the text" when claiming to "accurately interpret it" saying in effect "no I prefer to talk about this other text and show I can insert the idea of indefinite period of time HERE -- then imagine I coulda done that in Exodus 20 if I had taken the time to figure out how to actually make that work IN the text".

That is the very "eisegesis" that the exegetical method is designed to avoid so that we have objectivity and not pandering-wrenching-and-bending as the result of Bible study.

Bob said

I have to think there are going to be a LOT of readers that conclude that not only is that Bible text NOT an "example of Darwinism" that is "phrased another way" it is actually "opposed" to the point of Darwinism.

L.K
Where arises your expectation of biblical text that it should include or exclude examples of Darwinism and that such inclusions or exclusions might thereby be interpreted as supporting or undermining ToE? Why do you believe that the 'correct' interpretation of the text in questions leads only to the conclusion that 'it is actually opposed to the point of Darwinism'?

Again - just the "obvious" -- see the text

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Observes that it does speak to the point about who created all life on earth and the time frame in which it came about -- so ALSO does Darwinism speak to that SAME subject and as Darwin, Dawkins, Huxley, Meyers, Provine.. and Bible beleiving Christians such as myself have all argued -- those two are NOT the same!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Or maybe you will find a way to exegete Exodus 20:8-11 such that it shows Moses preaching Darwinism. (So far your most thorough treatment of it has been in the form <snip Ex 20:8-11> in a true "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" solution)

We will see.....

You seem determined to ignore every argument I have made to show that your interpretation of Exodus and its relationship to Genesis is disputed, not just by agnostics, atheists and 'Darwinist-Christians', but also by biblical scholars with no evolutionary axe to grind - unless you believe that Talmudic Rabbis and Moses Maimonides had a 'Darwinist' agenda underlying their understanding of OT text.

Your remark is a disservice to the effort I have put in to showing you that 'exegeting' Exodus does not give you the cut and dried solution to biblical meaning that you appear to think it does. However you want to cut it, it is clear to me that you are bringing a certain baggage of pre-existing assumptions and ideas to your study of the Bible; the supposedly disinterested analysis that exegesis allows you to conduct merely results in an interpretation of the text that reinforces those pre-existing assumptions and ideas.

By the way, I am still awaiting further information on the evolutionary-accepting Orthodox Rabbis who supposedly support your 'exegesis' of Exodus and whose authority you used to upbraid me for my disagreement with your conclusions. Insofar as you have never really addressed them, you also seem with no very good reason to dismiss as insignificant the opinions of those biblical scholars I have referred you to whose conclusions are different from yours.

 

[BobRyan]

Or maybe you will find a way to exegete Exodus 20:8-11 such that it shows Moses preaching Darwinism. (So far your most thorough treatment of it has been in the form <snip Ex 20:8-11> in a true "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" solution)

We will see.....

You seem determined to ignore every argument I have made to show that your interpretation of Exodus and its relationship to Genesis is disputed, not just by agnostics, atheists and 'Darwinist-Christians', but also by biblical scholars with no evolutionary axe to grind - unless you believe that Talmudic Rabbis and Moses Maimonides had a 'Darwinist' agenda underlying their understanding of OT text.

1. I have already conceded that even the ORTHODOX (i.e most strict of the Jewish sects) have caved in to Darwinian doctrine.

2. I have asked that you show "actual exegesis" of the Exodus 20:8-11 takes so IT can be "seen" to make your case... you steadfastly refuse to do that -- preferring to "talk around that point" instead.

3. You also provide no example of anyone ELSE exegeting Exodus 20:8-11 showing THE TEXT to conform to the usage you need to make of it. All you show is that there are those who agree with your need to spin it -- but so far nothing showing IN EXODUS 20 (from either you or any of your sources showing that the TEXT was intented to be bent in such a darwinist fashion).

4. Most innexplicable of ALL - when we compare your approach here to the one you used on the "Food for Noah" thread where you argued that the TEXT is faulty and can not be relied upon as a source of truth -- you have no problem admitting that the text does not support your bias... why not simply admit the same thing here as well? Use the same solution??

Having said that -- I still have THIS question for you -- why do you struggle so much trying to get the text to agree with you when ALSO claim the word of God is corrupt? (see your quotes below)

[
5. The OT was compiled several thousand years after the events it purports to recount in a language almost certainly different from that in which it was originally conceived and subsequently requiring translation into English for us to understand. That errors, ambiguities and downright absurdities might be incorporated over the centuries as a result of mis-rememberings, mistranslations, innocent copying errors and the desire to tell a better story seems inevitable to anyone with even a passing understanding of the vagaries of the oral record

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32847&start=60#p390319

I am not proposing an either/or solution; I am pointing to textual inadequacies that support the conclusion that the OT is not an inerrant text.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32847&start=60#p389826

Given that you are already arguing FOR the untrustworthy unreliable nature of the Bible -- why do you spend so much time running away from exegesis of the text? Go ahead and admit that text is not preaching Darwinism and is promoting a 7 day week for humans - based on the 7 day week of Genesis -- where GOD MADE everything (you know... just like the text says)-- AFTER all you claim the text of scripture is pretty much worthless -- what harm then does it do your argument to admit the obvious about Exodus 20:98-11 is not preaching Darwinism -- no not even remotely?

What is stopping you -- given that you claim the text itself is so glaringly obvious and you provide no exegesis of it - AND you give no source SHOWN to exegete Exodus 20:8-11.

Your remark is a disservice to the effort I have put in to showing you that 'exegeting' Exodus does not give you the cut and dried solution to biblical meaning that you appear to think it does.

That is because you can not '"show me the probem with exegesis" without actually doing it -- or pointing to someone who did it in the case of Exodus 20.

However you want to cut it, it is clear to me that you are bringing a certain baggage of pre-existing assumptions and ideas to your interpretation of Exodus 20 and are therefore refusing to exegete it since the actual text itself does not support your ideas for it.

the supposedly disinterested analysis that exegesis allows you to conduct merely results in an interpretation of the text that reinforces those pre-existing assumptions and ideas.

If you are claiming to be more skilled at exegeting the text than I -- please actually "do it" at least "once".

By the way, I am still awaiting further information on the evolutionary-accepting Orthodox Rabbis who supposedly support your 'exegesis' of Exodus and whose authority you used to upbraid me for my disagreement with your conclusions.

I have not provided Exegesis of Exodus 20 yet -- nor did I claim that they did that. I merely point to the linguistic argument from "Hebrew" that they are not claiming that there is anything in the Hebrew language that would argue in favor of "Changing the meaning of the word YOM in the middle of that text" just to please Darwinist doctrine.

So tyring to bend the word as it pleases you - in the case of Exodus 20 is out of the question. And besides - that method is eisgesis not exegesis.

Insofar as you have never really addressed them, you also seem with no very good reason to dismiss as insignificant the opinions of those biblical scholars I have referred you to whose conclusions are different from yours.

I did not find a single one of them even attempting to exegete Exodus 20 -- did I miss something??

Bob

 

[Rick W]

My arguments were directed specifically towards the OT. However, the reported miracles of Christ are as subject to the 'laws of nature' as we understand them today as any other phenomenon and we are entitled to inquire as to their likely authenticity. Was the historic Christ no more than a teacher and exemplar who pointed the way to God as an ordinary man and whose followers for obvious reasons exaggerated his accomplishments long after his death? How can we know for certain? Whether on a small scale or a large scale, whether an object has 'real' age or is 'created with the appearance of age' is an utterly untestable notion for science and has no objective meaning for our understanding of the Universe and we may as well give up all scientific inquiry as inherently futile. In Steven Jay Gould's words the whole idea of 'created age'

it violates our intuitive notion of divine benevolence as free of devious behavior,

(The Flamingo's Smile, Penguin edition, London 1991, p.110)

In the 19th Century the Rev Charles Kingsley understood this fully as well when he wrote that he could not believe
[quote:e43ab]that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie.

(Quoted ibid.)[/quote:e43ab]

That's exactly my point. To the unbeliever the whole of scripture is nothing but myth, a lie for it's not "testable". To the unbeliever even Christ's miracles of creation are myth, an untruth, an exaggeration... a lie. If we consider these miracle to be quantitative in a sense then the feeding of the masses is very small compared to creation of the entire universe. That being said if one cannot even fathom creation of a few fishes then how can it be possible to think in terms on a much grander scale?
Science is not an entity of it's own. Science is but the product of man's thought. Science comes from man who uses the tools of his imagination to sponsor the technology. Within that particular realm of imagination there is no room or ability to accept a concept of something from nothing... God's power of creation.
If one can't fathom even the miracle of the fishes then creation of the universe becomes a vain attempt in ambition.

 

[DavidLee]

That's exactly my point. To the unbeliever the whole of scripture is nothing but myth, a lie for it's not "testable". To the unbeliever even Christ's miracles of creation are myth, an untruth, an exaggeration... a lie. If we consider these miracle to be quantitative in a sense then the feeding of the masses is very small compared to creation of the entire universe. That being said if one cannot even fathom creation of a few fishes then how can it be possible to think in terms on a much grander scale?
Science is not an entity of it's own. Science is but the product of man's thought. Science comes from man who uses the tools of his imagination to sponsor the technology. Within that particular realm of imagination there is no room or ability to accept a concept of something from nothing... God's power of creation.
If one can't fathom even the miracle of the fishes then creation of the universe becomes a vain attempt in ambition.

Well put.
I often wonder how someone (anyone) can believe that the God of the Bible will save them when that same god cannot work even the smallest of miracles. To acknowledge the "correctness" of scripture for only the portions that make sense (or appeal) to me, is to destroy the integrity of it all. [/threadjack]

 

[BobRyan]

I often wonder how someone (anyone) can believe that the God of the Bible will save them when that same god cannot work even the smallest of miracles. To acknowledge the "correctness" of scripture for only the portions that make sense (or appeal) to me, is to destroy the integrity of it all.

"God of the Bible"??? which God would that be given...

[
5. The OT was compiled several thousand years after the events it purports to recount in a language almost certainly different from that in which it was originally conceived and subsequently requiring translation into English for us to understand. That errors, ambiguities and downright absurdities might be incorporated over the centuries as a result of mis-rememberings, mistranslations, innocent copying errors and the desire to tell a better story seems inevitable to anyone with even a passing understanding of the vagaries of the oral record

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32847&start=60#p390319

I am not proposing an either/or solution; I am pointing to textual inadequacies that support the conclusion that the OT is not an inerrant text.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32847&start=60#p389826

Bob

 

[DavidLee]

I often wonder how someone (anyone) can believe that the God of the Bible will save them when that same god cannot work even the smallest of miracles. To acknowledge the "correctness" of scripture for only the portions that make sense (or appeal) to me, is to destroy the integrity of it all.

"God of the Bible"??? which God would that be given...

5. The OT was compiled several thousand years after the events it purports to recount in a language almost certainly different from that in which it was originally conceived and subsequently requiring translation into English for us to understand. That errors, ambiguities and downright absurdities might be incorporated over the centuries as a result of mis-rememberings, mistranslations, innocent copying errors and the desire to tell a better story seems inevitable to anyone with even a passing understanding of the vagaries of the oral record

I must not understand how an all-powerful God can ensure the integrity of the words He uses to describe Himself. :roll: It seems to me if He can create an entire world and all that it is in it, in six twenty-four hour days, that a few fish should be easy. How much easier must it be to keep "errors, ambiguities and downright absurdities" out of His word?

I am not proposing an either/or solution; I am pointing to textual inadequacies that support the conclusion that the OT is not an inerrant text.

I believe that the Bible is trustworthy and self-correcting. I would say that at some point in history a few characters have been copied incorrectly. These "typos" can be corrected by the surrounding text. I do not think any scribe was able to mistake "now" for "never", or "day" for "millions of years", but then I'm a believer. I only ask how much one has to believe in something to count oneself as a believer. When does one become a disbeliever? How does one know what parts are true? When one says they believe in God but don't believe God ensures the integrity of His own word, how can they know the one in whom they profess to believe?

I see no problem with a literal six twenty-four [hour] days of creation (which should surprise no one here). I see the same word used in Exodus as in Genesis.

“But Aaron spoke to Moses, “Behold, this very day they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD. When things like these happened to me, if I had eaten a sin offering today, would it have been good in the sight of the LORD?â€Ââ€Â
(Leviticus 10:19 NASB)

The words "day" and "today" are the same Hebrew word - "yom", which looks like it means what we would all call a day.

Okay, I really am sorry to have hijacked the thread. :

(Edited because I left out the word "hour")

 

[Rick W]

...is an utterly untestable notion for science...

Some of your beliefs I find you defending here are just as untestable as some of my beliefs. How does one test the "Big Bang"? Or how does one test the mechanics of the theory of evolution? Or how does one test the evolution of man from microbe which in my mind is just as an exaggerated or untestable claim/belief as you believe Christ creating the fishes would be.
I don't find debating such theories much different from debating Buddhism, Hinduism or anything else which is based on a belief or the conclusions drawn or opinion formed from a pool of "believable" evidence through the faith of the believer whatever that may be.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

...is an utterly untestable notion for science...

Some of your beliefs I find you defending here are just as untestable as some of my beliefs. How does one test the "Big Bang"? Or how does one test the mechanics of the theory of evolution? Or how does one test the evolution of man from microbe which in my mind is just as an exaggerated or untestable claim/belief as you believe Christ creating the fishes would be.
I don't find debating such theories much different from debating Buddhism, Hinduism or anything else which is based on a belief or the conclusions drawn or opinion formed from a pool of "believable" evidence through the faith of the believer whatever that may be.

There are many ways to test ToE and big bang. If there was not they would not be theories.

Define what you mean "test".

 

[Rick W]

lol

 

[Barbarian]

How does one test the "Big Bang"? Or how does one test the mechanics of the theory of evolution?

Same way you test any other scientific theory. You take a look at the predictions it makes and see if they are right. (if it makes no testable predictions, it's not a scientific theory)

In the case of the Big Bang, the predicted microwave background was accidentally discovered by two Bell Labs engineers trying to get a hiss out of a microwave antenna. No matter where they pointed it, the same frequency of microwave radiation. Later they learned it was the precise wavelength predicted to be left over from the Big Bang.

In the case of evolution, you can set up a population and watch it to see if natural selection does what Darwin said. That's been repeatedly confirmed. You can also see if there's evidence for common descent. And that too has been tested several different ways and confirmed. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Or how does one test the evolution of man from microbe

Men evolved from other primates, not microbes.

which in my mind is just as an exaggerated or untestable claim/belief as you believe Christ creating the fishes would be.

He didn't create them at that point, He just miraculously made them enough to feed a multitude. And I firmly believe that He did.

I don't find debating such theories much different from debating Buddhism, Hinduism or anything else which is based on a belief or the conclusions drawn or opinion formed from a pool of "believable" evidence through the faith of the believer whatever that may be.

The difference is evidence. Once you know about that, you're no longer confused.

 

[BobRyan]

I see no problem with a literal six twenty-four days of creation (which should surprise no one here). I see the same word used in Exodus as in Genesis.

I understand but since L.K is arguing that the Bible is not trustworthy - my question is "why" does he then try so hard to "bend it to fit Darwinism" as in the case of Exodus 20:8-11 that is so "obviously NOT Darwin"?

If he is already willing to "throw the Bible under the bus" in Genesis why make such a fuss in Exodus 20:8-11 about trying to "get it to the altar of Darwin"? Why not simply say that Exodus 20:8-11 is "yet another example" of "And evening and morning were the SIXth DAY" statements that DArwinists NEVER use to describe the MAKING of mankind or the MAKING of all animal life on earth!

Bob

 

[Rick W]

Barbarian,
That's not exactly a test but rather an interpretation of data collected. Others have tested the theory that the earth is flat by pouring water onto a sphere and as predicted the water ran off onto the floor. That in no way proved the earth to be flat but was rather a misinterpretation of the predicted outcome.

Natural selection proves evolution?
Natural selection I believe. But all that's doing is developing a trait that's already there, nothing new has been added such as going from a fish to a mammal. A canine may have the traits or genes for short and long fur. Exposure to a colder climate through successive propagation essentially heightens the trait of long fur thus enabling those that retain the gene to survive. Along the way though the short fur gene may be lost and attempting to recondition the animal back to a warmer climate would then be unsuccessful.

Not long ago I noticed an article about the tendency of bacteria or viruses to become resilient to certain drugs. It was once believed to be evidence of the evolution of that bacteria or virus. But what was found was that it already had the mechanics within itself to do so and that the drug simply triggered the response to resist the drug. I'll see what I can do that find that article.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well first of all we already have on record the fact that Bible believing Christians, ANd Darwin, ANd Dawkins AND Provine AND Huxley AND ... (Agnostic and atheist sources in Darwinism) all AGREE on the glaringly obvious existence of the "GAP" between what the Bible text "says" on the subject of all species of life --vs what Darwinism teaches.

And all see this as being soooo glaringly obvious even so-called "Christian Darwinists" would be very reluctant to actually "exegete" (honest and objectively render) Exodus 20:8-11 due to their desire to resort to "hand waiving" as they only imagine "no gap" because of their compromised position that clearly needs to have it "both ways".

Can you provide quotations to support your claim regarding the 'on record' statements of the named scientists in respect of Exodus 20? Citations and references would be welcome. You have now moved from the unsupported claim in respect of ToE-accepting Orthodox Rabbis who derive the same meaning from Exodus 20 as you do to the as yet unsupported claim that 'Darwinists' and 'Christian Darwinists' refuse to exegete Exodus 20 because they can only come to the same conclusion as you do if they do,

Or maybe you will find a way to exegete Exodus 20:8-11 such that it shows Moses preaching Darwinism. (So far your most thorough treatment of it has been in the form <snip Ex 20:8-11> in a true "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" solution)

I do not understand your fixed belief that disputing that the days of creation week in Genesis were actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them now in some way equates to 'preaching Darwinism'. Were the biblical scholars of Talmudic times 'preaching Darwinism'? You have never addressed any of the points I have raised with you concerning alternative understandings of the days of creation except by reverting continually to your claim that exegeting Exodus 20 can result in only one conclusion. Simply repeating this over and over does not make it so, nor is it likely to persuade that you have considered alternatives and weighed them in the balance before dismissing them.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well you say "Darwinist" and "non-Darwinist" should not be thought of as the only two possibilities -- but you never identify a third one. Given that someone either IS a believer in Darwin or they "believe something else" by definition -- your argument lacks a compelling point.

You provide the absoluteness of only an either/or alternative. Is someone who accepts the 'fact' of microevolution but rejects the 'fact' of macroevolution a 'Darwinist', a 'non-Darwinist'. or something in between, something in fact neither absolutely the one nor absolutely the other? The world is not painted in simple shades of black and white.

I find that instructive because it indicates that you are closing in on what I call the "deny-all" solution such that now you deny that someone either believes in darwinism -- or "something else" (i.e. not Darwinism). That is getting to a "deny-all" model that I have seen before with Darwinists.

Only because you see things in such uncomplicated, diametrically opposed opposites.