Christian Darwinism

Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Rossiter offers excerpts from In the Shadow of Oz:   So what exactly is being espoused by the theistic evolution camp? Before we start to offer thumbnail sketches, we can more basically describe this view as an attempt to unify theism and evolutionary mechanisms. Most readers will interpret this as a marriage between God and Darwin, but there is much more at play here. With titles like, The Reconciliation of Christianity and Biological Evolution, Finding Darwin’s God, and How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, it seems obvious that theistic evolutionists also want to give the impression that they’re proffering a view that deals only with the narrow interface between theism and Darwinian evolution. But, the content of those books tells Read More ›

From Steve Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt, The discovery of digital code, hierarchically-organized information processing systems, and functionally-integrated complex circuits and nano-machinery would in any other realm of experience immediately and properly trigger an awareness of the prior activity of a designing intelligence — precisely because of what we know from experience about what it takes (i.e., what kind of cause is necessary) to produce such systems. But Bishop and O’Connor seem entirely unmoved by discoveries showing the existence of such informational and integrated complexity in living organisms, not because the existence of functional digital code or the nanotechnology in life is in any way in doubt, but because they have committed themselves to viewing the world as if it Read More ›

Recently, we looked at open theology in connection with the work of one-tme BioLogian Karl Giberson. “The Secret Sympathy: New Atheism, Protestant Fundamentalism, and Evolution” by Liam Jerrold Fraser for an argument for similarlity, from the open theology perspective: Abstract: In spite of the apparent differences between the two, a number of commentators have suggested an underlying sympathy between new atheism and protestant fundamentalism (e.g. De Botton 2012; Vernon 2007; Flew 2007; Robertson 2010) While such comparisons are intriguing, it not always clear whether they should be taken seriously, as they are frequently asserted without sustained argument. This paper seeks to ameliorate this lack of clarity through a textual study of new atheist and protestant fundamentalist texts. This textual study Read More ›

As some might hope? Where would that leave evangelicals now that Darwin is being re-evaluated in so many other places? Dragging in here late, with the last of the religion coverage for the week: Further to: “Karl Giberson? But at this point who cares what Darwin’s Christian huffs at Huffpo? (We all rate a better informed class of critic. Especially now.) There we looked at Nazarene process theologian Karl Giberson’s fact-free claims about the Discovery Institute, sponsor of ID theorists … Sounded odd, but he had been in the files for years. So I went back to see what else one might learn about a figure on the Christian lecture circuit who wants to “save Darwin.” From my notes: – Read More ›

Recently, Karl Giberson, author of Saving Darwin and former BioLogian, claimed the following in the Huffington Post, about the Seattle-based Discovery Institute: In their minds the possibility that the earth is 10,000 years old is an open question, even though geologists settled that one in the 18th century. They still think that Adam and Eve were real people and Noah may have rescued all the animals in the ark — claims settled in the 19th century. But most of their energy is spent promoting the idea that Darwin’s theory of evolution is implausible nonsense or, at best, a controversial theory with widespread scientific dissent. Why on earth would anyone write such obvious nonsense? As John West observes at Evolution News Read More ›

And why does he think he can break the mold of Christian notables puffing Darwin? The exploded but still tax-funded theories* of naturalist atheists? Dunno but get this: One of the biggest problems for neo-Darwinists is the origin of complex structures that appear suddenly in nature or the fossil record. My friend Dr. Stephen Meyer talks about this in his wonderful book, “Darwin’s Doubt.” He points out how, in the so-called “Cambrian Explosion,” the majority of animal phyla on earth appeared suddenly, and without obvious ancestry—almost as if they “exploded” onto the scene out of nowhere. Oh, so we’re allowed to know that now? As opposed to: Christians for Darwin will actually review Darwin’s Doubt, if anyone cares. Of course, Read More ›

Along with anyone who buys into it. Someone brown-bagged me the Canadian Christians in Science publication, Perspectives’s review of William Dembski’s Being as Communion. That took me back a ways. To the days when I used to listen to those clever people, and their immense betrayal of basic principles: Like it matters whether human beings can think or not. This is what it seems like: They wanted jobs in a system run by materialist atheists. And meeting the system most of the way was the only way to get them. That was their right. Christians for Darwin are mostly decent people, but have no idea that they do not need to grovel anymore. Raise your heads. To say nothing of Read More ›

Pos-Darwinista writes to say, We have established the Intelligent Design Brazilian Society – TDI Brasil, and our president, Marcos Nogueira Eberlin, a biochemistry professor at Unicamp, Campinas, Sao Paulo, where he heads the ThoMSon Mass Spectometry Laboratory, is a member of the Academia Brasileira de Ciências (Brazilian Academy of Sciences) But is he Darwin’s followers’ next job loss target? Destroying critics’ careers is pretty much the only thing Darwin’s current followers can account for successfully in the history of life. Brazilians may learn the hard way: When you aim at Darwin, you must not miss. That said: In September 2015 we will have two more ID conferences in Brazil like the first one we had in Campinas, Sao Paulo, that Read More ›

With a lot of help from Christians for Darwin (This story should have run yesterday, but Father’s Day took priority.) A reader writes to remind us of a recent book, doubtless forgotten in the current silly season of new atheist claims, a Pulitzer-winning history of America during the period 1815-1848 by Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America,1815-1848: The quotation proved the perfect choice, capturing the inventor’s own passionate Christian faith and conception of himself as an instrument of providence. As Morse later commented, the message “baptized the American Telegraph with the name of its author”: God. [footnote omitted] The American public appreciated the significance of the message, for biblical religion then permeated the culture in Read More ›

But many Christians in science do not seemingly want to confront that fact. Can they not face the ensuing responsibilities? Further to “How BioLogos describes the intelligent design community, commenter Ted Davis, a Biologian, replies (he follows up with a challenge for yer news hack, as per below): I’ll follow it with a second question for you, Denyse: Why do you continue to whip on the ASA? Is your complaint simply that the ASA is not an advocacy organization, such as UD or TDI or AiG or BL? If your complaint is that there are too many proponents of evolution in the ASA, then persuade a few hundred ID supporters to join the ASA and you’ll change the facts. … Read More ›

Further to “How BioLogos describes the intelligent design community, commenter Ted Davis, a Biologian, replies: I know everyone at BL and hundreds of ASA members, and I can never recall any one of them endorsing metaphysical naturalism. Not one. In every single case, if Denyse were to ask someone ” whether scientific explanations require metaphysical naturalism,” the answer would be, No. So, Denyse, having pretended to ask a question on your behalf, I’ll now ask you one on my behalf: Who’s ducking that question? Oh dear. This is one of those awkward situations. Of course no claimed Christian ever directly admits to metaphysical naturalism. Why would they? They would have to quit their jobs and their churches. That does not Read More ›

BioLogos, we are informed, is holding a meet right near an American Scientific Affiliation conference. Funded by Templeton millions, it claims: In contrast to EC, YEC, and OEC, Intelligent Design(ID) does not explicitly align itself with Christianity. It claims that the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe and of the development of life is a testable scientific hypothesis. ID arguments often point to parts of scientific theories where there is no consensus and claim that the best solution is to appeal to the direct action of an intelligent designer. At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how Read More ›

Readers may vaguely recall: If anyone cares, Biologos (Christians for Darwin) will now actually review Darwin’s Doubt, which shows why the Cambrian explosion can’t be explained by the theory that guides their lives and work. Author Steve Meyer responds to their attempts to defend Darwinian naturalism here: In any case, it is not at all clear that BioLogos has declined to take an official position on methodological naturalism. In their description of the theory of intelligent design on their website, BioLogos affirms its commitment to explaining all natural phenomena (including presumably the origin of life and novel forms of life) by reference to strictly natural causes. As the website explains: [Intelligent Design] claims that the existence of an intelligent cause Read More ›