Similar content with respect to gratuitous evil is at http://www.str.org/node/42582#.WU4TR7pFxPY

Sorry for the delay in responding. I was trying to find a specific quote from Pope Benedict for you...and didn't find it. :(

Or else what?

That is a very good question....of which I don't know the answer.( I also tend not to speculate on unknowns.)

However, at least three Popes have spoken on the matter, in one way or another, in response to our current scientific understanding. Since intrinsic science (as opposed to scientific philosophy or theory) is very limited on the subject of human origins, there is so far not much to specifically address.

(I delayed long to give you a non answer, didn't I? ;) )

I understand your means preclude you from seeing far enough to close the loop. Several loops even seem to force absurdity. The "we" which agrees is wide and diverse, and includes Non-Theists. In some ways it's reminiscent of thematic lines in the Stanford/Craig combo. Ultimately gaps are just not impressive to me or to you, as we all know our knowledge is incomplete. However, an ever widening array of the forced reductio ad absurdum presents philosophical naturalism with a metaphysical baggage which [1] makes it untenable and [2] affords those who disagree with its means/ends the intellectual luxury of a justifiable claim about PN's own implausibility and of Christianity's more robust plausibility.

Perhaps you just don't understand me. In either case, pursuit of further discussion is obviously futile. Have a good one.

If you could see far enough to justify your claim you'd justify your distinctions. Materialism / Non-Theism, and therefore your paradigm, and therefore your reasoning, and therefore you, cannot see far enough to answer the following questions and therein justify your distinctions. Plenty of published Non-Theists and Theists agree, as you're well aware. In fact many Non-Theists are quite forceful in said agreement about drawing "ontic-distinctions". Here's the questions one more time:

What is the fundamental nature of the history of the ontic-becoming of "Dirt-To-Man"? What is the fundamental nature of the history of the ontic-becoming of "Dirt-To-The-Adamic"? Where in your paradigm's seamless continuum of particle (or whatever) in motion do you differentiate the fundamental nature of said continuum from the fundamental nature of humanity? Point to where those fundamental natures irreducibly part ways. If you can. Then tell us what's broken, or lacking, if anything, in said ontic-becomings. What is your metaphysical (ontic, irreducible, etc...) referent for "broken", for "lacking"?

Let's try this one last time, I'll start further back:

Me: "I see nothing relevant in your post I can respond to, just fyi. There is a comical irony that you mention someone stringing words together :)"

You: "We know you can't see anything."

Anyone who knows I can't see anything would have needed to read both your comment and mine. No one in your listings of who "we" is have read my comment. Again, your error is obvious and still you try to rationalize it. Sad really.

Three items: [1] "We" includes me, Carroll's illusory, and you, and a wide array of published Theists. Your lack of means here is evidence of the same. The "we" of a wide array of Theists who affirm that you've not the means to defend your claim via answering my questions asked of you in my previous comment is easy enough to find. Would you like some quotes of Feser and Hart which agree with Carroll's "useful rather than true" nuances? I'm a bit surprised that you're not aware of the problem at hand. Please explain where I'm mistaken here.

[2] BTW, you never did answer me when I asked you what my theme was within the Stanford/Craig combo, and why Craig stated that evolutionary biologists need not be impressed with his reference. Please explain my theme there and also where I'm mistaken.

[3] As for causal closure, a purely physical system ought to be able to demonstrate such, but I don't think a materialist (or anyone) can demonstrate it. Why? Because the immaterial weighs in "also", and, so, without that included the loop can never be coherently closed. My metaphysics predict that such will result. Evidence is affirming such predictions. Incoherent closure is easy enough, and that's all that was given, in a very Carroll-esc fashion. Please explain where I'm mistaken here.

I'm only following the evidence where it leads. If an animal looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's a duck. The universe (increasingly) looks like a great big plan and operates like a great big plan, so it's a great big plan.

Yes, let's keep all options, all theories and all possibilities open to explain these questions....except the God hypothesis. Can't have that.

Are you unable, or simply unwilling to admit to error in using the pronoun "we" when the correct pronoun was I. Can't you see the futility of any discussion with someone who can't even do that? What would be accomplished by answering any of your questions if this isn't a two way street of me admitting error if it's found, and you doing so as well? Is engaging in futile and pointless activities wise on anyone's paradigm?
In general, what do you think you have accomplished with your posts on this thread? I've enjoyed and learned some things with my conversations Jim Hillclimber, for example, but I see nothing of value or coherence in any of your posts. I don't mean this just to be insulting, and I am genuinely curious as to your motives, especially as they relate to your inability to admit error. Another example was your quite wrong definition of causal closure.
Within your paradigm, isn't intellectual honesty a virtue? It is in mine. Openly admitting error and correcting it in the future is a key part of that, and you have repeatedly used "we" inappropriately and completely ignore the facts when it is pointed out that you are in error.
Again I see nothing of value to discuss we you if we can't agree on basic conversational and intellectual ethics.

P.S. I will not be distracted by additional irrelevant questions. I inclined to believe that you are using them as a distraction which is a standard tactic of a deceptive person.