Image via Wikipedia1. The Christian believes that God created man.
2. The Darwinist on the other hand believes that man created God.
3. The Christian Darwinist on the other other hand believes that God created man who created God.
Or, as Denyse O'Leary puts it:
So man created God, but no, God created man. Or God created man with the capacity of accidentally evolv[ing] an idea of God as an illusion. Why? Because he couldn’t reveal himself?Or, as I try to explain it:
My meagre understanding of the Christian Darwinist (i.e., the theistic evolutionist) is that he believes
a) that life appeared entirely via the mechanism of evolution without any gaps requiring divine assistance, and
b) evolution appears to be random from a scientific point of view, but, since God is sovereign, what appears random to us is actually the unfolding of a process established by God at work.
So, he’s comfy with the darwinist who insists on random evolution, but does not himself equate randomness with directionlessness. It's like the Christian darwinist overlays the randomness of evolution with the sovereign providence of God. So, design is real, but not detectable.
What gets me is the allergic reaction of a theistic evolutionist to the ID assertion that, no, the design is in fact detectable via the inductive methods of science. Horrors!
And the beat goes on...