For Christians for Darwin to respond to any substantive arguments about the science.
Here:
“Still Awaiting Engagement: A Reply to Robert Bishop on Darwin’s Doubt”
Biologos has posted the next segment of its comprehensive response to Darwin’s Doubt (hereafter, DD).Disappointingly, these entries — comprising parts 1 and 2 of philosopher of science Robert Bishop’s 4-part critique — do not reply to the scientific arguments or evidence presented in DD. Instead, Bishop focuses on what he calls the “rhetorical strategy” of DD, and its framing of the current status of evolutionary theory finds fault both with the rhetoric and the framing of DD, but, as I’ll explain below, he does so by mischaracterizing DD’s presentation of evolution.
But Christian Darwinists engage in rhetorical strategies because they don’t have evidence against detectible design in nature.
If Christianity is true or halfways true, they should not in fact have such evidence. What weird idea would convince them they even should?
And sure enough, they do not. So they find clever rhetorical cover, just like the defense lawyer for a career felon.
It’s the defense lawyer’s job, and one doesn’t envy him.
What exactly is the Christian Darwinists’ defense, given that they don’t need to even be in this fix? Why do they even exist, as a group?
Atheist Darwinists are quite easy to understand. But Christian Darwinists?
Follow UD News at Twitter!