Convergent Rhetorical Evolution
Fish and dolphins are functionally similar. Not because they are the same - fish and dolphins have distant and separate origins - but through the competition of natural selection in their common environment the species are reshaped and genetically modified to the point where they look the same and are doing the same thing in the same evironment with mostly internal differences. This is convergent evolution. The two don't necessarily "compromise" or converge on an equadistant midpoint: fish kept doing their thing, while dolphins increasingly developed or mimicked fish-like traits in order to survive.
I've noticed a similar phenomenon in arguments: convergent rhetorical evolution. Two people start with separate views, but through the competition of debate and their common environment of evidence and experience the views are reshaped and rhetorically modified to the point where they basically look the same and are doing the same thing in the same environment with only internal differences.
A creationist postion can't become a naturalist position any more than a dolphin can become a fish, but a creationist can abandon inessential issues like absolute biblical literalism, young-earth dating or biostasis and accept so much of the evolutionary position that we're basically talking about the same thing. God didn't create humans but he influenced the gene coding and protein transcription that enabled generational heredity that allowed traits to be inherited that permitted the billions of years of selection that resulted in modern homonids. That's still creationism, in a form that's so remarkably similar to evolution that the slight differences that remain are almost not worth discussing.
(Attribution: This observation is actually usernameguy's, but he doesn't write very much even though he's got a ton of good ideas about things.)
I've noticed a similar phenomenon in arguments: convergent rhetorical evolution. Two people start with separate views, but through the competition of debate and their common environment of evidence and experience the views are reshaped and rhetorically modified to the point where they basically look the same and are doing the same thing in the same environment with only internal differences.
A creationist postion can't become a naturalist position any more than a dolphin can become a fish, but a creationist can abandon inessential issues like absolute biblical literalism, young-earth dating or biostasis and accept so much of the evolutionary position that we're basically talking about the same thing. God didn't create humans but he influenced the gene coding and protein transcription that enabled generational heredity that allowed traits to be inherited that permitted the billions of years of selection that resulted in modern homonids. That's still creationism, in a form that's so remarkably similar to evolution that the slight differences that remain are almost not worth discussing.
(Attribution: This observation is actually usernameguy's, but he doesn't write very much even though he's got a ton of good ideas about things.)